Israel has deprived people of their rights as far away as India.
Evidence Mumbai Attackers were Anglo-American
Kurt NimmoInfowarsNovember 27, 2008
As a BBC report notes, at least some of the Mumbai attackers were not Indian and certainly not Muslim.
Pappu Mishra, a cafe proprietor at the gothic Victorian Chattrapati Shivaji Terminus railway station, described “two sprightly young men dressed in black” with AK47s who were “foreign looking, fair skinned.”
Gaffar Abdul Amir, an Iraqi tourist from Baghdad, saw at least two men who started the firing outside the Leopold Cafe. “They did not look Indian, they looked foreign. One of them, I thought, had blonde hair. The other had a punkish hairstyle. They were neatly dressed,” Amir told the BBC.
Other “men walked into the cafe, drank beer, settled their bills and walked out. Then they fished out guns from their bags and began firing.” Muslims do not drink alcohol, that is unless they are Muslims like Marwan Al-Shehhi and Mohamed Atta, who reportedly not only liked to drink but enjoyed lap dances by topless dancers as well before they supposedly hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. http://www.infowars.com/?p=6222
Anything that appears in the Alex Jones website has to be treaed with skepticism, but it is worth further investigation. "Mumbai Terror Attack: Further Evidence of The Anglo-American-Mossad-RSS Nexus," by Amaresh Misra, is more detailed and even more damning. http://www.countercurrents.org/misra031208.htm

Like I said to myself after reading your 2 new posts … and then verified by reading this one …

There will be NO EVIDENCE you will accept that doesn't lead you to be suspicious that Jews control the world … or something in that vain …

People like you are called anti-Semites … whether you live in Alexandria, Virginia or Alexandria, Egypt … you 'hate' Jews for being alive … that's on YOU … I/WE DON'T NEED TO PROVE ANYTHING TO YOU …

Believers in conspiracy theories are rampant in the Arab/Muslim World … mostly because of IGNORANCE … lack of education … in your case … it's not only ignorance but stupidity … you have too much information and can't see the wheat for the chaff … again … THAT'S ON YOU.

Mark, you seem to be desperate to prove that Jews/Israel do bad things, as if you would be able to prove even one instance of wrongdoing on the part of Jews/Israel, this will help you to base the theory that all trouble in the Middle east is due to Israel, and that because of that incident Israel/Jews should simply evaporate.
Let me try and save you the trouble, and make two statements:
1. I hereby confirm that Jews/Israelis do bad things. Israel has its share of criminals, racists, and stupid people. Israel/Israelis happens to do bad things, even if it is not its policy.
2. The fact that Israel has its share of criminals, racists, stupid and wrongdoers, doesn't delegitimize its very existence more than such action would delegitimize the right of the US, Russia, China, Egypt, Andorra, or Vanuatu to exist when similar actions are done by people who live there.
Your effort to look for that single proof that there is a Jew/Israeli out there that is wrong/bad is therefore futile.
Of course, if anti-Israeli/Jewish racism is what motivates you, logical arguments won't help here. This is something you'll have to deal with yourself, if you wish to.

Israelis as Israelis, that is as usurping colons, have no rights in Palestine, Jews will enjoy rights historically extended to all desiring to be near their sacred shrines to pray and enjoy their heritage NOT to colonize Palestine!

I disagree with your assessment of Pappe; we are all entitled to our own opinion. While entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own version of history. The historical facts are indisputable: around 500 Palestinian villages were forcibly evacuated of their exclusively Palestinian populations and many razed to the ground by invading Zionist forces. In Deir Yassin, approximately 100 to 200 Palestinians villagers were massacred (including women, children and babies); evidence suggests that this was done also to send a message to other Palestinians that they should leave immediately or suffer the same fate.

The former Palestinian towns were then given new Hebrew names to disguise their original origins. If you suspect Pappe's sources, you can go to the United Nations archives and other accounts from the late 1940's era.

Most Arabs lef their homes due to orders received from their own leaders, without knowing how the face of an Israeli soldier looks like.

About names of towns and villages, it is actually the other way around: As Jewish settlements existed for some 3,500 years, Arab villages that came later and settled on those settlements ruins, called similar names to the Jewish one, only in Arabic.

Take the Galilee Arab village of kfar Yassif, for example. When it was settled by the Jewish tribe of Benjamin it was called Yassaf, after Yosef ben Matityahu, who was the Governor of that region during the rebellion against the Greeks 2nd century BC.

There were no "orders" from Arab leaders outside Palestine. This was extensively explained by Morris. At most, some local leaders arranged the evacuation of their villages when they came under attack from the Jewish militias or when this attack became imminent. As Morris put it: "There was an almost universal one-to-one correspondence between Jewish attacks in specific localities and on specific towns and Arab flight from these localities and towns" [...] "What this means is that Haganah / Irgun / IDF attack was usually the principal and final precipitant of Arab flight".

Now you can argue if this was a deliberate ethnic cleansing or just a "happy coincidence", since there is no "smoking gun" that explicitly declares Israel's intentions to expel as many Arabs as possible. Myself, I don't believe in coincidence.

According to Palestinian Nimr al Hawari, in his book, Sir Am Nakba (the Secret of the Nakba) published in Nazareth in 1965, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri as-Said stated:

"We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."

John Bagot Glubb ("Glubb Pasha"), the commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, was quoted in the London Daily Mail of August 12, 1948. as admitting:

"Villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war".

Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph published on Sept. 6, 1949, stated:

"The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agree upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem."

Following a visit to refugees in Gaza in June 1949, British diplomat Sir John Troutbeck reported the following

'But while they express no bitterness against the Jews...they speak with the utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states: 'We know who our enemies are,' they will say, and they are referring to their Arab brothers who, they declare, persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes."

A report by Habib Issa in the Lebanese newspaper, Al Hoda of June 8, 1951, stated:

"The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade...Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."

The Jordanian daily Al Urdun of April 9, 1953, quoted Yunes Ahmed Assad, a refugee from Deir Yassin, as saying:

"The Arab Exodus …was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by the Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews. …For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy."

Edward Atiyah, who was London Secretary of The Arab League, wrote in his book, “The Arabs” London: Penguin Books 1955, p.183.

"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could only be a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab states and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country..."

Khaled al 'Azm, Syrian Prime Minister during the war, wrote in his memoirs:

among the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948 was] "the call by the Arab Governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and to leave for the bordering Arab countries, after having sown terror among them...Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave...We have brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees, by calling upon them and pleading with them to leave their land, their homes, their work and business..." .

If there was any such calls, they would have been picked up by the IDF. Yet the IDF archives never registered anything like that. They were mere rumors that, repeated frequently enough, acquired a veneer of truth and came to be accepted as fact.

As Morris put it:

"In refuting Teveth's single-cause ("Arab orders") explanation of the exodus up to 15 May, I pointed out that there is simply no evidence to support it, and that the single document Teveth is able to cite, the Haganah report of 24 April, refers explicitly to "rumours" and to an order to "several localities" (rather than a blanket order to "the Arabs of Palestine"). Moreover, neither these "rumours" nor the purported order were referred to again in any subsequent Haganah intelligence report (which surely would have been the case had these "rumours" been confirmed and had an actual order been picked up). The fact is that the opposite occurred: Haganah intelligence and Western diplomatic missions in the Middle East at the time, around 5–6 May 1948, picked up, recorded and quoted from Arab orders and appeals (by King Abdullah I, Arab Liberation Army Commander Fawzi Qawuqji, and Damascus Radio) to the Arabs of Palestine to stay put in their homes or, if already in exile, to return to Palestine. Not evidence of "Arab orders" to flee but of orders to stay put during those crucial pre-invasion weeks."

You say:
'If there was any such calls, they would have been picked up by the IDF. Yet the IDF archives never registered anything like that.'

Most Arabs left their homes prior to the establishment of Israel, and the IDF establishment. While the IDF today has both the technology available as well as the resources to get ample intelligence, you seem to forget we talk about the 1940's, when the entire Jewish population numbered about 600,000, technology was unavailable, and the little resources were stretched to the limit.

It is enough to take a look at Arab newspapers of the time to see how the Arabs themselves complain about the homes abandoning.

In addition to that, we have also reports like the one delivered by the UK representative to the UN, Sir Alexander Cadogan, who responded to the Syrian representative talking about Jewish massacre executed in Haifa. Sir Cadogan reported to the delegates that the fighting in Haifa had been provoked by the continuous attacks by Arabs against Jews a few days before and that reports of massacres and deportations were erroneous.

The same day (April 23, 1948), Jamal Husseini, the chairman of the Palestine Higher Committee, told the UN Security Council that instead of accepting the Haganah's truce offer, the Arabs “preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings, and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town.”

You say:
'They were mere rumors that, repeated frequently enough, acquired a veneer of truth and came to be accepted as fact.'

I brought you a quotes of the Syrian Prime Minister at the time, Khaled al 'Azm who said: "We have brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees, by calling upon them and pleading with them to leave their land, their homes, their work and business..."

This is no rumor, Froy. He is the actual leader who was in it. So is Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee. They are actual Arab leaders who TOOK PART in the call on Arabs to leave.

THE ARABS say that, not me. Be open to the truth, FROY.

By May 1948 King Abdullah went on air to call upon the Arabs to stay put, most of them already have left, the first of which were the rich Arabs in anticipation of war. Now the poorest of the poor were asked to stay and live out of... what exactly?

This entire story of people leaving their homes is a clear indication of really how 'Palestine' is considered the home of the 'Palestinians'. If someone believes a land is his - would he really leave it? - Jews were also under attacks by Arabs, but in many cases they simply fought to their last, refusing to evacuate. When someone believes that was his home, he doesn't so easily going away.

Part of it can be explained due to the fact that many of the evacuees were recent immigrants from neighboring countries who came over also because Jews offered jobs. Once war started, they made the natural choice and went back home.

Do you know who won the Gaza marathon this year? - It was the Palestinian runner Nader al-Masri. Taher al-Masri, another Palestinian, was born in Nablus in 1942 and was the Jordanien Prime Minister in 1991. Do you know what 'al-Masri' means in Arabic? - It means 'the Egyptian'.

Don't you get it yet FROY … the Arab/Muslims began a Civil War between November 1947 and May 1948 … and then the Arab/Muslim states joined in the fight … Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan (along with various and sundry jihadis) …

THEY BEGAN A WAR … that the Jewish State finished with an 'upset' victory … just like Spain crushed Italy today … Israel CRUSHED the Arab/Muslims in battle … a real dirty war … a fight to the finish …

The war ended with the Jews controlling more land than was apportioned them in the 1947 United Nations agreement (the one the Arab/Muslims went to war to smash) … instead the Arab/Muslims lost more territory … in 1967 … similarily … the Arab/Muslims attempted to attack the Jewish State by grouping together in a MILITARY PACT … Jordan, Syria, and Egypt along with Iraq and various other jihadis … ONCE AGAIN … the Arab/Muslims lost and with that loss … gave up even more territory …

There will be no returning of territory WITHOUT an end of conflict agreement betweeen Israel and the Arab/Muslim World (all countries without exception) … failing that outcome … the staus quo ante will continue …

That was no "civil war", Tzatz. That was a well-armed army of foreign colonialists in a murderous campaign against a dramatically outgunned native population, with the obvious aim of terrorizing them into exile, perpetrating atrocious massacres of civilians such as Deir Yassin, which eventually pushed the neighboring nations to intervene. A colonial war of conquest like many other we've seen throughout History.

As for "end of conflict agreement", the offer is on the table for ten years already. But what's the point if any offer is going to be dismissed as a "trick" by Israel anyway? I guess that's the point. If Israel rejects all "end of conflict agreement" proposals, it does not have to return any territory, right?

Don't make me laugh … it's always about the poor Arab/Muslims … native population … don't you give these thugs any credit? The Israelis sure give them credit.

The Israelis didn't have ANY ACCESS TO GUNS, AMMUNITION … you've read Benny Morris … he spells it out plainly … the INDIGENOUS ARAB/MUSLIMS WERE ON THE OFFENSIVE … THEY SEEMED TO HAVE THE 'BEST' OF THE BATTLE … UP AND UNTIL … the Israelis were able to import the ARMS THEY LACKED … from Czechoslovakia (the Russians were quite helpful for a few months until Stalin became the paranoid schizo he was) of all places … THUS THE BATTLE TURNED!

You said: "… with the obvious aim of terrorizing …"

Don't make me laugh … kew the violins … grab me a hankee … can you hear yourself FROY? As someone who likes to quote Benny Morris you should realize your BS doesn't cut it. There was NO PLAN … except to defend and push the onslaught back … afterall … we're talking about the Arab/Muslim world's MIGHT … AREN'T WE? They were a fierce fighting machine! Remind yourself FROY … that 1% of the Jewish Population of the State DIED defending their newly sovereign state … if you're in Europe … sipping coffee at an internet cafe … that would mean …

in Germany - 820,000 dead
in France - 630,000 dead

THIS WAS NOT A TRIVIAL MATTER … FROY … this was an existential war as proclaimed by the Arab League …

“I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars.”
- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League

The Arab Peace Plan err the Saudi Peace Plan … the Saudis better tell Hamas since they have never agreed to recognize or have peaceful relations with the Jewish State … and Abbas & co … he can't even 'get it up' to say the words 'Jewish State' … so don't make me laugh … your cousins will have to suffer more embarrassment … they'll have to live with that bone in their throat until the 'give up' their quest for ending the sovereignty of the Jewish State …

“If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea … Even if we are beaten now in Palestine, we will never submit. We will never accept the Jewish state ... But for politics, the Egyptian army alone, or volunteers of the Muslim Brotherhood, could have destroyed the Jews.”
- Hassan al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood founder

(New York Times, August 2, 1948)

Another blowhard Arab/Muslim … but guess what … the MB have reached the leadership in Egypt … their President Morsi … is a follower of al-Banna … where is this all heading? Peace? Let me know … bro

As an American who recently visited the occupied Territories, I was appalled at the brutality of the Israeli soldiers and harsh treatment of the Palestinians by the IDF soldiers.

The Israeli army routinely commits crimes and atrocities: demolition of Palestinian homes, evicted Palestinians from their homes and allowing so-called "settlers" to move in, not allowing Palestinians to return to their land and then subsequently confiscating the land, kidnapping children from their families at gunpoint in their homes, torture and abuse of prisoners, etc.
Many Palestinians are arrested simply for speaking out against occupation.

I visited the al-Rawi family, Palestinians in East Jerusalem who lived there for decades; they were forcibly evicted from their home at 5 AM by IDF soldiers, and then a few hours later Israeli "settlers" were allowed to move into their home. This happened recently in the Sheik Jarrah neighborhood.

In the Palestinian town of Bil'in, every Friday there is a peaceful demonstration which is met with Israeli tear gas, concussion grenades, and foul smelling water sprayed over the demonstrators who are protesting the illegal confiscation of their land.

There is simmering resentment among many Palestinians, who have tolerated these Israeli abuses for decades. If there is no political settlement giving Palestinians a homeland and if building of illegal Israeli settlements on confiscated Palestinian land continues unabated, I wouldn't be surprised to see a new intifada in the next year or two.

And to think: all it would take is for Abbas et al (including Hamas) to agree that Israel has a right to exist and as a Jewish state and they could setttle this in a nanosecond.
The Palestinians have been used a a pawn by their Arab "brothers" for decades in order to deflect attention and criticism of their own regimes by their own people. Ancient Rome tried to do the same thing by offering distracting games in the Collosseum. The leaders of despotic Arab regimes have the Jews. I am surprised that Assad hasn't launched an attack on Israel as a detraction away from their own internal problems. I guess you can play that card for only a while........

Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority do acknowledge Israel's right to exist, as did Yasir Arafat at Camp David.

Regarding recognizing Israel as a "Jewish state": to do so would mean you are asking that Palestinians should agree to second class status in their own ancestral land and to acknowledge Jewish Israelis as having a superior legal status and hegemony in law and society. Since more than 700,000 Palestinians were forcibly evicted from the land in 1948, why should Palestinians acknowledge and legitimize the land thieves? A very useful book outlining the 1948 events is by the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe: "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine". It's a book that both the U.S. and Israeli Governments hope no one reads.

1) why would Palestinians, living in their own State in the west bank and Gaza have second class standing? They would be RUNNING it.
2) If you are referring to Palestinians who are already Israeli citizens and alsready have the right to vote in Israel, but due to the current conflict, may not serve in the Army; I have no doubt that unfortunate precaution would no longer apply should a Treaty be signed. Apart from this understandable factor-Jews and Arabs have the same legal status.
3) I wonder-if in any eventual Peace agreement-whether Jews would be allowed to live anywhere in that New Palestinian state. I suspect: NO!

1) why would Palestinians, living in their own State in the west bank and Gaza have second class standing? They would be RUNNING it.
2) If you are referring to Palestinians who are already Israeli citizens and alsready have the right to vote in Israel, but due to the current conflict, may not serve in the Army; I have no doubt that unfortunate precaution would no longer apply should a Treaty be signed. Apart from this understandable factor-Jews and Arabs have the same legal status.
3) I wonder-if in any eventual Peace agreement-whether Jews would be allowed to live anywhere in that New Palestinian state. I suspect: NO!

Pape is not a historian, or at least not a proper one. He openly states that he has abandoned the goal of objectivity and impartiality in favour of a partisan, questionable narrative. His books are a decent account of what Arabs believe happened, but are not a serious attempt to discover what actally happened.

You said: "As an American who recently visited the occupied Territories …"

You don't need to say anything more … you've identified yourself clearly with that information. Only a Lefty/anti-American crusader would go and 'visit' the West Bank? Looking for a vacation? Go elsewhere …

What you came to do was involve yourself in an anti-Israel/anti-Zionist crusade … simply you're the last person to listen to … your earnest political views taint your 'impressions' … you are not a witness … you are a polemicist!

Well, Mr. Traveler, suppose that instead of accepting a Buy-Out for lands taken in war, Mexico had refused to cede Texas and Arizona to the US back in the 19th century. Instead they never admitted defeat, refused to settle, fired rockets into the border towns every day and occasionally blew up busses, coffee shops and bars.

Mexican kids threw rocks at Americans and carried weapons and explosives for older kids. Furthermore, the Mexicans claimed a homeland from South San Antonio to the Mexican border. Then they refused to negotiate, let alone settle and every single day rockets fell on Texas. How do you think Americans would feel about Mexicans? I think they would think of Mexicans as the enemy. How does one treat an enemy? ANSWER: BADLY.

You say:
'As an American who recently visited the occupied Territories, I was appalled at the brutality of the Israeli soldiers and harsh treatment of the Palestinians by the IDF soldiers...demolition of Palestinian homes, evicted Palestinians from their homes and allowing so-called "settlers" to move in, not allowing Palestinians to return to their land and then subsequently confiscating the land, kidnapping children from their families at gunpoint in their homes, torture and abuse of prisoners, etc.'

And you really saw all of that? - Excuse me for questioning the credibility of this claim.

You say:
'I visited the al-Rawi family, Palestinians in East Jerusalem who lived there for decades; they were forcibly evicted from their home at 5 AM by IDF soldiers, and then a few hours later Israeli "settlers" were allowed to move into their home. This happened recently in the Sheik Jarrah neighborhood.'

As per the home in Sheik Jarrah neighborhood - Actually the Jews moving into that h9ome the Arabs were evacuated from were able to prove that home belongs to them.

When settlers happen to establish their home over an Arab's land, then there is a party going on, everyone talking about land theft by Jews, etc., even if the Israeli government evacuate those settlers from that land.

But when an Arab settles in a Jew's home and that home is returned to its rightful owner - That's an Israeli brutality, hey?

You say:
'Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority do acknowledge Israel's right to exist, as did Yasir Arafat at Camp David…why should Palestinians acknowledge and legitimize the land thieves?'

Make up your mind, WTraveler. How is it possible to recognize a land thief? – Double talk again??

Anyway, as Article 19 in the Palestinian National Charter DENIES the Jewish right for self-determination, Israel is duly justified top demand the Palestinians recognize Israel mas the Jewish state. Remember: UN Resolution 181 states clearly that two states are to be established – One JEWISH, the other Arab (not Palestinians. This name was invented later on).

Islam's rulers have decided to interpret the Kuran in ways that are ultimately self-destructive. When Muslims allow Jews to live pecefully amongst themselves as Muslims currently live in Israel-that will signal a sea-change in Islam's attempt to interpret their Kuran in ways that produce POSITIVE behaviors grounded in sound psychological soil. Simply put: Muslims will become happier about THEMSELVES.

kuran itself is Zionist!
If the historic documents, comments written by eyewitnesses and declarations by the most authoritative Arab scholars are still not enough, let us quote the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation

This conflict has little to do with Islam and Judaism anymore. There are minority extremist groups on BOTH sides, the Palestinian (Islamic) and the Israeli (Jewish) side, that are belligerent in their actions and words. But this conflict has to do with both the Israeli and Palestinian government manipulating and toying with their people's emotions and fears.

Jews, Muslims and Christians were living in Palestine together peacefully for thousands of years. The spread of "Zionism" and the greedy elite that came with it are the reasons for all the trouble in this region.

RE your "The spread of "Zionism" and the greedy elite that came with it are the reasons for all the trouble in this region"

Do you really believe the trouble in Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Libya,Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and....lest we forget....Syria are the fault of the Jews????? What absolute drivel. As for greedy elite-I guess you must be referring to Saudi oil Princes and you got confused, right?

You ignore the spread of pan-Arabism. This ideology also played a major factor in past confrontations. And the land never had a moment of peace in the past. There was always fighting on all sides. What you say about Jews, Christians, and Muslims living in peace sounds like a dream only said to make Zionism seem as the only cause of the situation that is occurring to this day. There are ideologies on both sides that added to the fire and within those ideologies even more ideologies and so on and so forth. It is too complex for you to just state one comment as a truth. You are wrong.

You said: "Jews, Muslims and Christians were living in Palestine together peacefully for thousands of years."

Huh? When did that happen again? Maybe Muslims … keeping both Jews and Christians as 2nd Class DHIMMIS … HAVING TO PAY THE ZAKAT … AND BENDING LOW BEFORE MUSLIMS is your idea of 'living together' … but Jews lived in ghettos in the Arab/Muslim world … and Jews had to wear distinctive clothers which immediately identified them as Jews (something Christian Europe borrowed from the Muslims) … and No Jew could ride a horse lest he be higher than a Muslim … do I need to go on?

There was no Muslim/Jewish happy time … except when a specific ruler or dynasty forgot the rules and allowed Jews to prosper … but those times were quickly followed by other rulers or dynasties where the OPPOSITE WAS TRUE. Remember … there is no rule of law in the Arab/Muslim World ONLY SHARIA and SHARIA dictates Jews are 2ND CLASS …

When you use the word Zionist … you're talking about JEWS!!! Remember the words of the famous American Leader … Martin Luther King who said:

"... You declare, my friend; that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist'. And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of G-D's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews -- this is G-D's own truth.

"Anti-Semitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agree-ment. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently anti-Semitic, and ever will be so.

"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tryant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered our L-RD. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them."

There you have it … from a real HUMANITARIAN … you Faisal are an Anti-Semite!

Article 2 - "Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit."... meaning no room for Israel.

Article 15 - "The liberation of Palestine... is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine..."

Article 21 - "The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine...".

Today in an Israeli -Palestine dual state, the population is 55% Arab.
With each passing day, the Arab demographic dominance grows exponentially.
The Jewish birth rate is like other Europeans: women have an average of less than two children.
And the Jewish birth rate struggles to maintain replacement rate. Women love their careers.
Palestinian women average over 5 children.

Israel would be a member of the Arab League.
And Koranic Laws and possibly Sharia Law would prevail.

But to maintain power as a minority, Israel employs an Apartheid State.
It is undemocratic. But the alternative is another Islamic Republic.

Today we see the same demographic transitions in Europe.
For the first time in 1996, the most popular male baby name in the UK is Muhummad(With about 10 various spellings). And because of high Muslim fertility rates, it will remain on top, surpassing Michael, David and Jack.

Britain has the Pakistanis.
France has the Algerians,
Germany has the Turks.
They are over 10% of the population and growing exponentially.

Europe has a major declining and aging population.
Migration is a part short term solution.
Immigrants have much higher fertility rates.
The recent turmoil and turbulence of the Arab Spring is opening a floodgate of immigrants.
Europe is their Number One destination.
Local European Embassies are deluged everyday in North Africa and the Middle East.
And then there is illegal immigration through porous and weak countries like embattled Greece.

The Muslim immigrants retain their high religiosity and belief system.
Unfortunately there also is a vein of Militant Islam and Radical Wahhabism bankrolled by billions from the Saudiis. Yes they want to invest millions in your neighborhood:
they will build a new gold domed mosque in you neighborhood over the site of an old empty church and centuries old village graveyard.

And the dream of the Caliphate and Arab Brotherhood remains in the hearts of all Muslims, both at home and overseas.

Look at Israel today for the potential future demographics and struggles of Europe.
And terror attacks may become part of the routine of the street; look at daily attacks in Baghdad, Damascus, Kabul, Tehran, Lebanon, Tripoli, and Sudan. It is as common as the daily weather report!
Terror is how tribes exert power: Sunni v. Shia v. Alawite v. Kurd.

Reform your sinful ways or face death threats.
Death threats are one of the more common use of mobile phone technology in Afghanistan. They have an App for that.
By Muhummed's decree, consumption of alcoholic beverage must be punished by 80 lashes in the public square.
Most Europeans would be spanked daily.

Sometimes an invasion does not occur with tanks, but with tiny footsteps.

Completely undemocratic. What type of nation does not allow over 20% of its citizens to serve in the military because they are non-Jewish? What about a state that employs colonial tactics and settlement expansionism to push forward their borders on a daily basis? What about a state that blockades its neighbors from the ENTIRE world? And the state that also provides thousands of checkpoints to constantly monitor the movement of every one of the Palestinians forcibly removed from their lands?

You misunderstand. Israel does allow Arabs to 'voluntarily' serve in the military. I have met Arabs in Israel who served. They are just not forced to serve like the Jewish population does. And by the way, Druze also are drafted in the military. Sounds democratic to me. To further comment, the West Bank is a disputed area which is in the mess it is in because of events that took place years before. It is a much complex issue, and of course there are controversies. It is important to properly understand and study it rather than just shoot your mouth off.

Piling up on vulnerable minorities and blaming them for subversions has historically been a particular European obsession. Which explains why Connect the (wrong) Dots would pin future threats to Euro security to the armies of mohamedan children. Do I hear echoes of 1930's or the Brevik manifesto?

But every crisis the continent had found itself in throughout its sordid history ( including the current one ) had been caused by Europeans themselves. "Muzlim threat" would cause rabid racists to rise to "Europe's defense," but who would protect Europe from the Europeans?

Post WW II era has been the most peaceful period in European history. One could very well attribute it to the American supervision that kept the continent in peace ( and in one piece ). Euro inability to deal with the Balkan conflict in the 90's and the current financial conflict demonstrates that the best hope for the continent is to live under a benign American hegemony.

There's no need …
all that needs to happen is that Muslims accept the rule of law … Western Judeo-Christian values NOT SHARIA VALUES … and assimilate into the majority culture.
Can't change your spots? Stay HOME! IN THE ARAB/MUSLIM STATES.

Best thing would be for Israel to annex it to the river and southward to the canal and deport the vagrants to Arab lands where they belong.. then they can live out their days playing dominos and assorted games at cages working on conspiracy theories while murdering the next door clan for not having the same thoughts...

I see your playing the double standard card here. You forgot to mention the 5 million Palestinians who were expelled from their lands when Israel came into being, even after the Zionist leaders promised not to expel any Arabs already living in Israel. And even after the UN demanded that the transition of Israel be a peaceful, non-violent one.

Your seriously exaggerating. 5 million Palestinians were not expelled. The average assumed number by historians is about 700,000. And some Arabs were kept in Israel after its creation since they did not take part in the war against it. 1948 was an all out war. Many people, both Jews and Arabs, lost their homes whether they were expelled by invading Arab or Jewish forces or fled from the fighting. Seems your playing the double standard with some distorted claims.

Since Mubarak took power in Egypt, Israel had carte blanche in the Mideast. However things are changing fast, a more pragmatic Turkey, a revolutionary Egypt and a hostile Iran. Add up a declining US and rising China to the calculation, Israel should start making lasting peace otherwise it will end up like the crusader states.

So like most Muslim dipsticks … your self-inflated view of Muslims and Islam are DEAD WRONG … modernity DOESN'T BECOME YOU … you'll need another couple of hundred years to figure out … Islam is BS … that freedom of thought is a good thing … and that your food/cuisine is the best thing about you'all !!!

There is one thing I will have to agree with Kursato, and that is the US declining influence in the Middle East. The Russian support to his protégé in Damascus is a contrast to the US abandoning of its allies. Russia's position in Syria is no less intended in signaling to Egypt, Yemen, and potentially Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the rest of them, how Russia is loyal to its allies in contrast to US betrayal.

I am afraid that apart for Israel, the US has no real friends left in the Middle East, and a fewer take the US seriously. Will a decisive act on Iran rebuild its credentials as a meaningful power in the region?

As per China-Israel relations - Given the situation in Egypt, and as an alternate route to the Suez Canal, the Chinese may embark on a joint project with Israel building railroad and a pipeline from the Red Sea port of Eilat to the Mediterranean port of Ashdod, bypassing the need to pass through the Canal, avoiding lawlessness from Sinai, among other Egypt's problems.

I thought even pro-Israel propagandists no longer pretended that Israel was America's friend. Israel and Zionism was founded on hatred of all outsiders. I am an American and I think The United States should be renamed Israel's Bitch. I mean bitch in the prison sense, and this happens to be 'independence' day.

You say:
'I thought even pro-Israel propagandists no longer pretended that Israel was America's friend.'

Why not?

You say:
'Israel and Zionism was founded on hatred of all outsiders.'

Why is that?

You say:
'I am an American and I think The United States should be renamed Israel's Bitch.'

Why?... I mean, had Israel asked the US ever to send troops for protection, like South Korea did where the US lost over 20,000 soldiers in the 50's? - Or like in South East Asia where the US lost over 50,000 soldiers in the 60's-70's? - Or in Kuwait during the 90's?

Israel never asked the US to shed its own blood for its protection. So why do you consider the US Israel's bitch?

In 1841 Rabbi Gustav Poznanski of Charleston, South Carolina, declared: “This country is our Palestine, this city our Jerusalem, this house of God our temple.”

Most American Jews share that sentiment. Politicians are thus mistaken in thinking that AIPAC/Israel represents their views. Judaism, they seem to forget, is centred on the worship of God not the worship of a political entity, which is a form of idolatry.

So what? He's not the Pope! He's a guy with an opinion … nothing more! As a matter of fact … in the America of 1841 it was prudent NOT TO SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT …

What's more important is what George Washington said in 1790:

"… the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens." and "May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

BTW … Jews and Judaism are 2 different things!

To be a Jew means … God, Torah, and Israel which translates for YOU …

1. BELIEF IN THE ONE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE
2. BELIEF IN THE HOLY BIBLE
3. BELIEF IN THE JEWISH PEOPLE

God granted the Jewish People the Holy Land of Israel for their patrimony … as a non-believer I still affirm that the ONLY land that has been the home of the Jewish People has been Israel. This is an historic fact. Indisputable. The fact that the world has recognized this is easy to prove … see the League of Nations and United Nations … words … acts … votes in favour of the Jewish People and the State of Israel.

What you have given us … for everyone is aware of it now … a racist joke … a joke told at the expense of the Jewish People … Spain of all places has been remorseless in its prosecution of anti-Jewish hatred … dating from 1492 … seemingly to the PRESENT DAY!

And what about the Palestinian people living there for the last thousand years? This is also an indisputable fact that the world recognizes. I understand your opinion, that the only home for Jews is Israel, but this does not answer the main problems clouding the region.

I guess you would agree with an America becoming a country only for White Anglo-Saxon Christians then?

In 1925 one Mordecai Manuel Noah tried to establish a sort of a US State of Ararat at the Grand Island in the Niagara River. The idea didn't win support from US Jews as well.

Over the years many suggestions for a jewish homeland were floated, including Uganda, Madagaskar, etc. Only one was eventually realised, and that was the only logical one: n IPalestine, where the Jewish homeland is.

You said: "I guess you would agree with an America becoming a country only for White Anglo-Saxon Christians then?"

Huh?

Did you ever guess why the Israelis are so adept at infiltrating the WB and Gaza when they actually had soldiers INSIDE rather than just 'on the border'?

It's because Israelis … over 50% of them … come from the Arab/Muslim World … they 'look like' Arab/Muslims … they're brown and can speak Arabic … now you know !!!! You think all Jews are white and have blue eyes? Wrong again. Don't audition for Jeopardy … unless they have a category on the Koran … because general knowledge … 'ain't your cup of tea'!!!! LOL

Semitic people are rather annoying attention seeking things. I say ignore the shit out them and their pretend 50 year old quarrel.
I suspect arabs and jews run somekind of scam game pretending to fight a savage war so west suckers would sink cash into them.
They can keep both of their pathetic prophets too. jesus-muhhamad things are of no interest to a real European.

Going by your reply, your past generations were all soft in the head. But that is no matter. Atheism is itself a 'religion', and it has no heart, no warmth, no human quality. Your comment amply shows it. You may be educated, but you have no heart.

We would like to orientalize a bit. In 20 years the Muslim population in Europe will be approximately 10%. The Palestinians were not alone in Europe. The Muslim Europeans and the other Europeans would welcome also the Palestinians, if they will.

The roots of those who fuel Islamophobia in the US and Europe can be traced to israel. For example the person who invented the word Eurabia was also an israeli. Another example in the Netherlands the biggest islamophobe (Wilders) is being funded by zionists in Israel and the US.

I do not think that resentment can be caused so easily. I also do not want to appear like Bruno from Sacha Baron Cohen. I understand that the Jews need Israel. If you have been persecuted for 2000 years, you can not rely on the current security. Anti-Semitism can arise again. But perhaps the option of a stronger connection to Europe can in the long term relax the situation for Israelis and Palestinians.

Are MUSLIMS … who by their behaviour have made it easy for the majority population to feel estranged from these Muslims!

Merkel … Sarkozy … Cameron … have all stated that multiculturalism is a failure and are making and will make further demands on immigrants to accept European cultural values or face the consequences …

You can't expect to immigrate and not assimilate to the values imbedded in the West … JUDEO/CHRISTIAN VALUES not Sharia values. The values of the West are sacrosanct and must be followed when you are a member of the West. NO TROJAN HORSE BS …

GEERT WILDERS is absolutely right in making it clear to all Muslims … follow the path of the West … accept our values or don't bother coming.

There always has been a majority of Jews in main Israeli cities throughout History , it always has been the case in Jerusalem Jews were a majority in Jerusalem at any time. Despite all efforts made by Turkey and others invaders to uproot Jews from Israel, Jews were majority in all important cities in Israel Judea Samaria.

That's patently false. Even Jerusalem didn't have a Jewish majority until the end of the 19th century (some studies even point to the early 20th), after thousands of Russian Jews poured in. In 1800 Jewish population in Palestine was barely 7000 souls, 2.5% of the total. Some "majority".

Your assertion that Turkey was an invader of Israel is laughable. I think you are misleading willfully to create a phantom history.

Your assertion that Jews were majority in Palestine (or its cities)is also incredible. How did Jews survive the Romans? Crusaders? Where did diaspora come from? Did they just decide to wander away from Jewish majority Palestine?

Blatantly false , Jerusalem as well other main cities in Israel maintained a jewish majority at any time.
According to Mark Twain and Rev. Manning the region in the late 1800s and early 1900s was barren and empty - the population was less than 5% of today's population. The reason for such a huge Arab presence in the Mandate was because they came from surrounding poor Arab countries in search of work - work created by the Jews who were already living in the area.

The Mandate for Palestine, the only legally valid document in existence, says that the Israelis have the right to settle anywhere in the former British Mandate of Palestine. The League of Nations document retains its legal validity thanks to Article 80 of the United Nations Charter. The Palestinians on the other hand have no legal rights to the land nor do they have any historical connection to the land that they have illegally occupied for the past 64 years.

As you can see, it was the massive arrival of foreign Jews from Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century what altered the demographic composition of the place. But those where foreigners with no right to a region where no known ancestor of theirs was born (regardless of what Britain, France, Italy and Japan might have said in their infinite wisdom), while Palestinian Arabs had been living there as far as memory could tell.

Don't the demographics make it clear that ever since the Jews left the land it was essentially devoid of population? Two thousand years ago the estimate is there were 2.5 million people living in the land. Until the return of the Jews the population was less than half a million! That's less than today inhabit Jerusalem alone!

You claim that no known ancestors of the Jews was born in the land. But that's simply false. This was the homeland of the ancient Jews. The Jews had a distinct language a distinct culture a distinct religion and a sense of nationhood which they preserved for 2000 years in all their wandering. The Jews never gave up their claim to the land. That is clear to anyone who knows the Jewish prayer book or has ever been toa Jewish wedding or participated in a Jewish holiday meal. And while they were away no one else came to inhabit the land, just a few scattered villagers here and there. The Jews reclaimed an essentially empty land. That's the demographics you yourself point at.

The land was never "devoid of population", as you can well see in the charts. It faced a serious demographic decline due to diverse reasons, including several plagues, but it has been continuously inhabited throughout the ages. Modern historians also dispute the historicity of the "diaspora" as a result of the Roman wars in the 1st Century AC. Romans did not have the logistic means to deport such a large population, and the banishment is believed to have been restricted to Jerusalem alone. Most Judeans remained in the area after the war, and the Jewish population only declined as Christianity spread, and later with the arrival of Islam, and locals adopted these new religions.
Jews were already more numerous outside of Judea, in communities around the Roman and Persian empires, than inside Judea, long before these Roman Wars. This could only be possible through an active proselytism activity. Entire kingdoms and tribes were known to convert to Judaism as far as Yemen, Northern Africa and Central Asia.
As a consequence, it is far more possible that modern Palestinian Arabs are the descendants of those ancient Israelites, rather than some people from Poland or Morocco, who wouldn't be able to name one single ancestor of theirs born in Holy Land if they tried.

A country which was once a home to 2.5 million people and then became depopulated down to 250,000, that is, down TENFOLD, can rightly be considered a land ESSENTIALLY DEVOID OF POPULATION. Also, the figure points to the fact that there WAS a MASSIVE outflux of population (a.k.a exile) for how else do you explain this dwindling? No amount of hairsplitting could change this obvious conclusion.

Your claim about the Romans not having the means for massive deportations is laughable. Hundreds of years before the Romans the Assyrians and Chaldeans undertook massive population transfers. Do you think the Romans with their great genius for logistics and organization, could not manage that?

You seem to be ignorant of the Byzantine peresecutions and wholesale massacres of both Jews and Samaritans which also led to many Jews escaping to live under the Persians. You are also ignorant of the fact that Jewish law PROHIBITS missionary activity and requires Rabbis to DISSUADE people from converting to Judeism.

"You are also ignorant of the fact that Jewish law PROHIBITS missionary activity and requires Rabbis to DISSUADE people from converting to Judeism."

That was a later development, as intolerant Christians and Muslims took over half world, pushing Jews to isolationist postures. In pagan times, it was not uncommon for Jews to proselytize nor for pagans to adopt Judaism. As I said, entire kingdoms adopted Judaism as their official religion. Even a Jewish king, Herod the Great, was a descendant from Nabateans who converted to Judaism under the influence of the Hasmoneans. As I said, before the Roman wars that the myth blames for the diaspora, Jewish population outside Judea was much larger than inside the Jewish heartland.

The population in the area declined with time, due to plagues, wars and economic decadence, but those who remained are the ones with the greatest possibilities of being descendants of those who lived in the same region before them, rather than other people whose only link to the territory are religious myths. Palestinian Arabs are the only ones who can be considered indigenous inhabitants of Palestine, and thus were the only ones with any legitimate right to it.

The fact that during the period of the 2nd temple there were a lot of Jews outside of the land Israel is not in dispute. But that is not the issue.

We have no clue as to how many of the Jews were proselytes. Let us assume by a wild guess that 20 percent of Jews during the 2nd temple period had no roots in Palestine. What happened to the other 80 percent? In other words, how did the ratio of Jews who had no root in palestine to Jews who did have such a root, evolve over time? For sake of clarity lets call the first type of Jews white Jews and the second type blue Jews.

We know that before the 2nd exile there was a 1st exile so there were already many white Jews oustide of palestine. We also know that the Jews own perception was that there was an exile. That is attested to by Jewish liturgy which was composed at a very early stage. Josephus tells us of a mass deportation of Jewish slaves after the destruction of the temple. We may assume the same happened after the other destructive rebellions. We also know of persecutions the Jews suffered in Palestine. So we have indications of a massive outflux of Jews.

On the other hand we have no indication of a decline in the population which did not involve emigration and selectively affected only the inhabitants of Palestine . For example the Justinian plague didn't hit just Palestine so there is no reason to assume that it affected the ratio of white to blue Jews. Since Talmudic law forbidding any missionary activity was already in the process of forming we may assume that there were no additional blue Jews added during the period. We have to keep in mind, however, the exception of the Khazarites.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary our best guess is that the ratio of white to blue Jews stayed constant most of the time and was tilted slightly in favor of the blue Jews because of the Khazarites. So we may reasonably assume that 70 percent of the Jewish lineage is white.

On the other hand the assumption that the Palestinians are the only descendants of the white Jews is quite unwarranted. Even if we did not have clear historic indication of movements of population, slow diffusion of population both in and out can always be assumed to occur. There are always small numbers of people moving in and small numbers of people moving out. When the numbers of those who occupy the land at any given time are so insignificantly small as they were for most of the period it is reasonable to assume that over a period of centuries the entire original population gets displaced. Also, I think there are indications of movement of populations.

But all this is quite irrelevant to the point I have made. It is obvious that the land was inhabited to only a tenth of its capacity in ancient times and only 2.5 percent of its capacity in modern times. What would you call such a land if not desolate?

I would clarify my argument as follows. We are talking about two kinds of movements. The movements in and out of the land of Israel and the movements in and out of the Religion of Judaism.

In the case of movements in and out of Israel we have first of all indications of strong pressure for outward movement of the original inhabitants. Second of all we have an extremely low level of occupancy of the land at any given time, making random movements in and out very significant in the long term. This means that the correlation between living in Palestine in the 19th century and having ancient Jewish ancestry is almost nonexistent.

In the case of movements in and out of the Jewish religion we know that there was strong pressure to move out (for example convert to christianity) strong barriers against moving in (Rabbinical prohibition of proselytizing) and the population was usually quite large so as to be quite insensitive to random movements in and out. This implies that there is a rather strong correlation between being Jewish today and having ancient Jewish ancestry.

The claim that the prohibition of proselytizing in Rabbinical Judaism is a result of christian and muslim intollerance is plainly false. The source of this prohibition is the Talmud (Yebamoth 47a) which was redacted under the Parthians long before Mohammed was born. Actually the source is Tanaic which implies it dates back at least to the 3rd century, long before the conversion of Constantine. This prohibition is strongly in tune with the whole theme of Judaism as a nationalist religion.

It is true that the Hasmoneans forced conversion upon the Edomeans. As recorded both by Josephus and in the Mishna and Talmd these were not considered by the mass of Jews as legitimate Jews. In the eyes of the Jews Herod was not a great Jewish king but a foreigner, a slave who became a king. It is possible that eventually the Edomeans were intermingled and assimilated in the Jewish community but there is no indication of that. We know the Jews in the Mishnaic ane Talmudic era were particularly obsessed with purity of lineage so it would have been difficult for entire tribes considerd as foreign to assimilate.

Anyone aquainted with the Jewish religion knows that it is a particularly nationalist religion. It revolves around a covenant of a specific people with god. It's all about ancestry, handing over tradition from age to age, about inheritance of land, remembering the particular history and so on. Such a religion by its nature has very little appeal for outsiders. And the insiders would also not like others to join. Just like nations tend to be exclusive not inclusive. Isolated instances of conversion should be thought of as the exception rather than the rule.

You would have thought the so called "religion of peace" would allow the Jews to live in a country they have lived in for nearly 4,000 years, well before the islamic ideology came around. Jews have been a majority in many cities in Israel for millenia.
Israel just has to look to her neighbours to see how Arabs treat eachother, how they treat Christians, let alone how they would treat Jews, given the chance.
Land for peace is a myth. The Israelis understand more than anyone that the islamic world will never accept the existence of this tiny nation in this slither of land. They are damned if they do, and damned if they dont.
All very well being an armchair liberal in the West away from the middle east telling Israel what to do. The Israelis are well aware of what the islamic agenda is, and always will be, so they get on with securing their country and living in the roughest neighbourhood on our planet. They do not have the luxury of thinking that real peace is likely. You just have to look at the actions of their arab neighbours to eachother, and in other countries where islam is a majority.

What a load of bull! No city in Historical Palestine/Eretz Yisrael has had a Jewish majority for 2000 years until droves of European Jews began arriving to the region in the late 19th century. There were barely 7000 Jews in the whole Palestine in 1800, out of a population of 275,000. That's 2.5%. Some majority.

If Arabs have rejected the creation of Israel is because it was created for a largely foreign population at the expense of the native Arab inhabitants, who were unceremoniously kicked out of their homes to make space for the newcomers. No indigenous population on Earth has ever accepted that kind of abuse without a fight.

If Israel ever wants to be accepted in its neighborhood, it will have to come to terms with its colonial origins, and end once and for all the cruel and humiliating treatment of the 4m Palestinian Arabs it keeps under its boot for over four decades. You can't expect Arabs to just ignore that and hold hands just because Israel is "tiny".

You said: "If Arabs have rejected the creation of Israel is because …"

Stop right there!

Israel was created by virtue of a vote by the UNITED NATIONS … and the Jewish State was recognized by the world community of nations since May 14, 1948 …

Who cares if the Arabs rejected it? The Arab/Muslims started wars that have lead them to lose more and more land to the Jewish State … that farce has not ended … nor will it end … up and until …

The ARAB/MUSLIMS accpet a sovereign Jewish State …

The so-called Palestinians are a figment of their own and your imagination … when there is a state … you can call these Arab/Muslims Palestinians but NOT BEFORE … they're stateless Arab/Muslims that's all …

The end of the Arab/Israeli conflict cannot come before the Arab/Muslims recognize and accept a sovereign strong Jewish State …

Let me know when you're ready … then we can "hold hands" … but not before …

They were both important pilgrimage centers for foreign Jews, and had large Jewish communities, but did not have any "Jewish majority" before the 20th century, with the massive arrivals of European Jews.

Palestinians were no less "stateless" than any other people under Western colonial rule at the time, and had no less right to their ancestral land than Indians, Kenyans, Algerians or any other such "stateless people", regardless of what the UN said (and remember this was just a UNGA recommendation). The right of self-determination of indigenous peoples is above any such political decision.

In any case, it's been 10 whole years since Arabs offered to "recognize and accept" Israel, in exchange for an end to the occupation, yet they are still waiting for Israel's reply. I think Israel's most eloquent reply was this month's decision to build 850 more homes on occupied Palestinian land. That's what Israel thinks about Peace.

The Arab Peace Initiative … INCLUDED THE RETURN OF ALL ARAB/MUSLIM REFUGEES TO WITHIN THE JEWISH STATE … this 'Trojan Horse' cannot/will not be part of ANY PEACE TREATY between Jews and Arab/Muslims! It's a NON-STARTER!

You missed the 2 VALID offers made by Israel to the Arab/Muslims!

You said: "but did not have any "Jewish majority" before the 20th century …"

Jerusalem … was Jewish Majority in the 1800's !!!! Jerusalem was not an important Arab/Muslim town … the Arab/Muslims are using the Jewish 'longing' … 'need' … for Jerusalem as their capital city … in order to exacerbate the conflict.

You said: "The right of self-determination of indigenous peoples is above any such political decision."

Therefore … once YOU accept the Jews as indigenous PEOPLE … you'll be onside

You said: "… decision to build 850 more homes …"

These 'homes' are hardly an issue … they are being built WITHIN the current settlements … NO EXTRA LAND is being taken … frankly … it's already clear that the Arab/Muslims will have to make do with those lands on the other side of the Fence … that's the deal

The Arab Peace proposal only mentions a "just solution" to the refugee issue, and you know this well. Nowhere does it demand the return of all refugees. The issue is purposefully left open to negotiation, yet Israel and its apologists preferred to just misrepresent it to avoid dealing with an opening that would ultimately have them relinquish "Judea and Samaria". Negotiations and talks are good, but only as long as Israel is firmly in control to make sure they go nowhere.

"Jerusalem … was Jewish Majority in the 1800's !!!! Jerusalem was not an important Arab/Muslim town … the Arab/Muslims are using the Jewish 'longing' … 'need' … for Jerusalem as their capital city … in order to exacerbate the conflict."

Most demographic studies only point to a "relative" Jewish majority in Jerusalem at the very end of the 19th century, after the first massive immigration waves of Russian Jews. Other show a Muslim majority until the Brits came into power. In any case those were mostly foreign-born immigrants with little right to the city, which by all accounts was the cultural, economic and religious center of Palestine and its hundreds of thousands of inhabitants, Muslim, Christian and Jewish, even if it was not as important as other Arab cities like Damascus or Cairo. There will be no solution to this conflict without sharing Jerusalem.

"Therefore … once YOU accept the Jews as indigenous PEOPLE … you'll be onside"

Someone whose grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, and every other ancestor he can name was born in Poland, Morocco or Moldova can only be "indigenous" to Poland, Morocco or Moldova. This is plain common sense.

"These 'homes' are hardly an issue … they are being built WITHIN the current settlements … NO EXTRA LAND is being taken"

Those houses are being built on land that does not belong to Israel, consolidating its illegal territorial grab without the consent of the Palestinians to whom it rightfully belongs. This is very much THE issue here. As long as Israel keeps entrenching itself on the land it is supposed to negotiate about, nobody will take seriously its overtures. Which may be a good thing in itself, since Israel has never been serious about the whole process, and it's about time for the world to realize.

Fine then the Arabs can go back to Egypt, Syria , Iraq, and what's modern day Turkey..Where they came from..quit trying to rewrite history and shine your turd.. Everyone but the Muslims KNOW the truth and historical facts, Arabs just only believe in a pedophiles words, and the latest conspiracy..

The point was/is … the Arab/Muslims should return from whence they came … NOT MANDATE PALESTINE … where many Arab/Muslims seeking employment MOVED TO … due to Jewish immigration (bringing with them industry) and British Mandate Government seeking workers …

IF you left it to the Arab/Muslims … they'd still be sleeping without the swamps cleared of malaria et al … you know like in Egypt … or Gaza or most places in the Arab/Muslim World … where productivity is a 'dream' idea … NOT REALITY …

Here's a book review … http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/robert-spencers-did-muhammad-exist-a-valuable-read.html

You know … Jews have fairytales … are Muslims immune? How about that nightride … on the winged horse by M? OR THE LYRIC from Jesus Christ Superstar … 'did Muhammad move that mountain or was that just PR'

Islamophobe? …

Get used to it FROY … we still have freedom here in the West … we can question the teachings of our 'elders' … it's only MUSLIMS who want to make any criticism of Islam … verboten

Like I said a POPULATION EXCHANGE … it was a popular practice in those days … there were Millions moving places … INDIA/PAKISTAN … GERMANS OUT OF EASTERN EUROPE … GREEKS/TURKS … guess what it works EXCEPT in the mind of the ARAB/MUSLIMS

You said: "In any case …"

Stop right there. After WWI … the Ottoman Turks lost possession of their lands … including the area called Mandate Palestine … there was NO SOVEREIGN STATE … only inhabitants of the land … stateless mostly impoverished people you can call 'sharecroppers' defined as "A tenant farmer who gives a part of each crop as rent" … they had NO RIGHTS … NO VOTES … NO SAY IN WHAT WENT ON IN THE GOVERNANCE OF THEIR AREA! The British imposed the Mandate and brought 'civilization' to these lands … with the EXPLICIT pledge to make the area into a 'JEWISH HOMELAND' AS PER THE MANDATE'S PROVISIONS. In fact that happened by 1948 when the UNITED NATIONS voted and accepted Israel as a sovereign nation. There were plenty of other mandates for the Arab/Muslims and outright sovereignty offered to other Arab/Muslims … BUT IN THIS ONE SPACE … a Jewish Homeland was deemed necessary by the WORLD POWERS and the LEAGUE OF NATIONS … a world body which gave life to the Jewish Homeland through the INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED SAN REMO TREATY … that's INTERNATIONAL LAW …

You said: "… built on land that does not belong to Israel …"

The land in question is DISPUTED TERRITORY … it may eventually belong to another sovereign state but then again it may not. The result of a Peace Treaty will see to that … don't prejudge! UN242 said … and I paraphrase … 'NOT ALL TERRITORY WILL BE RETURNED … ANY SETTLEMENT MUST LEAVE RECOGNIZED AND DEFENSIBLE BORDERS' … so there will be adjustments made … it's only that Israel has acted in its own best interests in creating 'facts on the ground' that they believe will be land they will acquire in any Peace Settlement.

I agree with your statement … "it's about time for the world to realize" it!!!!

I'm not talking about anything except reality … Arab/Muslims flocked to Mandate Palestine for the OBVIOUS reason … there were jobs with honest pay … both Jewish industry and British necessity required workers … therefore … and it can be proven in the 'family names' of people … using the 'from Iraq' … 'from Syria' … et al
This information is common knowledge FROY (ask one of your cousins) … how come you don't know about it?

Tzatz, that tripe was debunked decades ago by Israeli historians themselves. Take a look at the censuses from the time. No massive Arab immigration to be found (much less attracted by Jewish colonies, who in general shunned non-Jewish labor). Today's Palestinians are the descendants of all the peoples who have dwelled in that benighted patch of land through the ages: Canaanites, Arameans, Philistines, Samaritans... and Israelites, unlike all those Poles and Moroccans that arrived in the 20th century.

Britain, France, Italy and Japan had as much right to give away Palestine as they had to stay in India, Vietnam, Ethiopia or Manchuria (and never mind that the San Remo thing never talked about a state for the Jews, but about a "homeland" within Palestine). The right to decide the fate of a territory only belongs to its indigenous population. Whether they "own" the houses they live in or whether the territory is a "state" is entirely irrelevant. This is the right of self determination, and it is internationally recognized as a basic Human Right. Anything else is colonialism imposed by force, and thus illegitimate, regardless of the body who dictates it.

And once again, the OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES are only "disputed" in the sick mind of Israel's apologists. The rest of the world recognizes them for what they are: a territory and a population under foreign belligerent occupation. Israel has no right whatsoever over one single inch of land beyond the Green Line. It is for the Palestinians to agree or refuse to "swap" it or give it away. Everything Israel builds there is illegal under International Law. Just as illegal as "population exchange" (a thinly veiled euphemism for ethnic cleansing).

But you keep rejecting the Arab nations' explicit peace overtures, dismissing with cynical arguments. They won't be on the table forever, and the Middle East is rapidly becoming less accommodating to the occupation regime's shenanigans.

Their ancestral land was part of the Ottoman Empire … who by virtue of their belligerence against the eventual victors of WWI … lost their empire … the inhabitants of that empire were not sovereign at any point in the last 1000 YEARS!!! What on earth are you mumbling about FROY?

The land they lived on was mostly … Ottoman Empire State Land … whose ownership devolves to the next owner … in this case Britain by virtue of the Mandate and eventually to Israel by virtue of their sovereignty ATTAINED IN 1948 … the same is/was true in 1967 … most of the land was/is owned by the state … previously Jordan who having lost the war … lost title to the state lands now devolved to Israel … you see that's the way of the world … 'to the winner go the spoils' is a saying where I come from …

The Arab/Muslims are the only LOSERS/DEFEATED in War who want to set the terms of the settlement? Huh? Is it an Arab/Muslim superiority thing? Despite the fact the Arab/Muslims register at the very BOTTOM of the bottom feeders on Planet Earth? These thugs think they can IMPOSE their terms of surrender after starting a war(s) … does this make any sense? Maybe on Bizarro World but right here on Planet Earth it's NONSENSICAL. AS IN IDIOTIC …

Israel's apologists will always be stuck in the 19th century with their colonial mentality. There is no "right of conquest" anymore, Tzatz. Foreigners can't take over other people's lands anymore, much less artificially alter their demographic composition.

Syrians did not lose their right of self-determination just because their empire lost a war, and exercised that right by expelling the French, who, according to you, had a "right" to Syria just because they had contributed to defeat the Ottoman Empire. Similarly, native inhabitants of Cameroon, Rwanda or Namibia had the same right to self-determine as anyone else on his ancestral homeland, even if their empire had lost the war and been divided among the victors, and despite of the fact that these lands had never been "sovereign states" as we understand it. Eventually, and with much resistance from their colonial masters, these people exercised their right to rule themselves.

In Palestine, it was the artificial alteration of its demography through immigration and ethnic cleansing what prevented its indigenous people from exercising their right. Something criminal under International Law as we understand it today that will always cast a shadow over Israel's very legitimacy.

You say:
'If Israel ever wants to be accepted in its neighborhood, it will have to come to terms with its colonial origins, and end once and for all the cruel and humiliating treatment of the 4m Palestinian Arabs it keeps under its boot for over four decades.'

The 'Palestinians' came under Israel's boot for the same reason Germany and Japan came under the US/UK/France/USSR boots at the end of WWII.

I suggest the Palestinians to adopt the policies adopted by Japan and Germany: Surrender, and end their aggression against Israel. Then, and ONLY then, will they be entitled to ask nicely Israel to leave.

A LIE. The creation of the Jewish State was through the mechanism of INTERNATIONAL LAW. The San Remo Treaty is an INTERNATIONALLY recognized and valid piece of INTERNATIONAL LAW. It gave Britain the Mandate over Palestine and embedded into its fabric the Balfour Declaration giving the Jewish People a homeland in what has become Israel. In 1947 … the UNITED NATIONS … voted to create a Jewish State and lo and behold on May 14, 1948 it became reality and the world accepted it … Russia & the USA included … the 2 SUPERPOWERS accepted Israel as a sovereign nation within minutes of their declaration.

You can huff and puff … but Israel is sovereign by right and will remain sovereign by MIGHT. The lands that have been acquired through wars with the Arab/Muslims … in each war the Arab/Muslims were the aggressors and in each war the Arab/Muslims lost MORE TERRITORY to the Jewish State. (Which BTW the Jewish State still holds) There will be no relinquishing of territory until there is a final END OF CONFLICT SETTLEMENT … NOT ONLY WITH THE PA & HAMAS … BUT WITH THE ENTIRE ARAB/MUSLIM WORLD AGREEING TO END ALL HOSTILITIES AND CLAIMS AGAINST the Jewish State of Israel …

You're still thinking about the 19th C Froy? The Jewish State is thinking in the 21st C … a member of the OECD … with a hi-tech industry and a 1st World economy … where Tel Aviv is said to be one of the best 'party towns' on Planet Earth … where discoveries of ancient Israel are being made daily … give it up FROY … you're going to be looking from the outside in for the rest of time … the Jewish People are sovereign on their land …

"I suggest the Palestinians to adopt the policies adopted by Japan and Germany: Surrender, and end their aggression against Israel. Then, and ONLY then, will they be entitled to ask nicely Israel to leave."

Abbas has already tried that. One can praise his cowardice and subservience for at least showing us that your premise is false, that Israel will never give up "Judea and Samaria", no matter how low the Palestinians prostrate.

Colonial machinations can't possibly prevail over basic Human Rights such as the right of self-determination. The San Remo Conference were four colonial powers deciding the fate of far away territories without the consent of their indigenous population, so it was largely illegitimate, even if it was recognized as "legal" by other colonial powers at the time. And in any case, the treaty never talked about a "state", so it is hardly grants any legitimacy to the creation of Israel. UNGAR 181 was a non-binding recommendation, like all General Assembly resolutions. It was passed at a time when most people on the world were still under Western colonial control or were otherwise not represented in the UNGAR. It would be unthinkable that a similar resolution would pass in our days.

Israel exists and it is internationally recognized as a sovereign country, but this will not erase the fundamentally unjust nature of its creation, against the indigenous population of the territory. Until this fact is acknowledged by Israel and justice is served, the regime will not know lasting Peace, and will have to live with the constant threat of an endless conflict.

"What had he done? - Even the minimum declaration in principal that he recognizes Israel as the Jewish state he refuses to do."

Forget about "declarations" and look at his actions. He and Fayyad have effectively repressed any attempt of organized resistance against the occupation regime. They have jailed hundreds of militants, including those from their own ranks. Israel has known no greater calm in the West Bank since it occupied it in 1967. Yet this is not enough for Israel. "If only he could rein in Hamas in Gaza, they could ask nicely Israel to leave". "If only they recognized Israel as a Jewish state, there would be peace". "If only they prostrated themselves before their benevolent masters and begged for forgiveness, Israel would be so merciful to let them have some scrap of sovereignty".

There will always be some new "if only" that Israel will come up with to push the end of occupation further into the future. I think Palestinians have to forget about Israel willingly granting them their freedom. They will have to stand up and take it by themselves.

You say:
'He and Fayyad have effectively repressed any attempt of organized resistance against the occupation regime.'

Just see how biased you are, and how selective memory you implement. You 'forgot' that those two clowns had simply ran away from Gaza, allowing the Hamas armed takeover there. The Palestinian 'Authority' in theory controls also Gaza, only that mighty Abbas can't even set foot in Gaza!

The only thing that prevent from Abbas to be thrown out of an 8th floor building in Ramallah by a Hamas member, like happened with Fatah guys in Gaza, is the IDF presence, and its actions against terrorist in that region as well.

Actions taken by the PA in the West Bank are for one purpose and one purpose only: Prevent a Hamas takeover in Ramallah. As Hamas and gang members are imprisoned, a side effect is that Israel enjoys the outcome as well. This does not mean we can fool ourselves that Abbas does ANYTHING for Israel!

You say:
'There will always be some new "if only"...'

There is one 'if only' that is out there since November 29th, 1947: If only the Palestinians had recognized a Jewish State then, there would be no war, no occupation, no refugees; there would be only prosperity, development, peace.

You can't blame Abbas of not trying to take over Gaza. Sadly for Israel, his forces were far less disciplined and motivated than those of Hamas, and his coup attempt against the democratically-elected Palestinian government was botched in the Strip, despite the active support Abbas received from both the US and Israel. Now blaming Abbas for not controlling Gaza is like blaming him for not controlling the moon. It's just out of his reach (and every time he tries to reconcile with Hamas and bring the Strip under PA control, Israel is the first one to denounce it, so hypocrisy's stench is hard to stand).

In any case, you can't deny that Fayyad's US-trained forces have properly fulfilled the task Israel subcontracted to them. Arguing that his inability to "end aggression" against Israel is the reason for the regime to cling on to "Judea and Samaria" is as cynical as it gets.

"There is one 'if only' that is out there since November 29th, 1947: If only the Palestinians had recognized a Jewish State then, there would be no war, no occupation, no refugees; there would be only prosperity, development, peace."

That is a practical impossibility. No native people on Earth has ever peacefully accepted the colonization of their homeland by foreign forces. Resistance was an axiomatic outcome that even early Zionists like Jabotinsky anticipated.

The only "if only" that could have prevented this conflict would have been "if only those Europeans hadn't chosen other people's homeland to establish their state".

But since we can't change the past, it's pointless to indulge in this kind of speculation. The situation is as it is and not as it should have been nor as we would have preferred. Israel has to end occupation here and now, and stop making ridiculous excuses to avoid fulfilling its obligations under International Law.

You say:
'No native people on Earth has ever peacefully accepted the colonization of their homeland by foreign forces.'

I guess this is the main rift between us, FROY. For as long as you fail to take a deep breath, accept the truth, and be ready to admit the wrong approach of yours, this rift won't be closed.

Here are the facts that no propaganda would be able to make them go away:

1. The right for self-determination is universal and is independent of the size of the people. Nauru, or Tuvalu, as you may know, have a population of 10,000 each, and those are independent nations.

2. The Jews are entitled for self-determination and have the right to consider themselves a people.

3. Throughout history Jews lived in Judea, also known as 'Palestine' (this is simply because in 135AD one influential empire decided to call it 'Palestine').

4. Thus, the Jews living in Palestine for thousands of years are entitled in principal to demand their own state; NO ONE has the right to prevent the Jews living in Palestine from a state to be established in their homeland. All that is required is to jointly define its borders with its neighbors; No one is entitled to question why such borders should exist.

5. Once a Jewish State has the right to exist, NO ONE has the right to define for that state whom it will allow into that state, and whom to keep out. Forcefully attempting to prevent the universal right from the Jewish people to a state of their own, doesn't deprive the Jewish people from inviting whoever they wish to invite to join them in their own state-on-the-making.

6. By 1947 MAJORITY on the land was NOT OWNED by the people who today call themselves 'Palestinians'. It was either public, for the most part, or Jewish owned. Arabs owned more than Jews did.

7. The 1947 Partition Plan gave the Jewish State some 55% of the land, MOST OF IT was the Negev desert, a public land NOT owned by 'Palestinians'.

Bottom line – the Jewish people is entitled in principal to a state of its own. It was offered mainly on land NOT owned by Arabs, and so dubbing this principal as 'colonial', or claiming it to be 'land theft' is wrong, a gross LIE.

For some, the 'colonial' claim represents a lie promoted by racists who use it as a toll in order to discriminate Jews and deprive them of their basic universal human rights.

That's what you don't understand, SF: only NATIVE inhabitants of a given territory have a right to exercise their right of self-determination on it. You also need that those NATIVE inhabitants constitute a majority in the territory you claim, otherwise you are vulnerating the rights of the majority. NATIVE Jews in Palestine didn't comply with any of these requisites in 1947. The vast majority of Jews in Palestine at the time were FOREIGN BORN, almost all of them had foreign-born parents. Only a tiny and scattered minority of them were had actually been living there since before the First Aliya. That those FOREIGN Jews belonged to the same religious/ethnic group that this handful of native Jews is entirely IRRELEVANT. They were born in Poland, from Polish parents, Polish grandparents and Polish great-grandparents. They could only exercise their right of self-determination in Poland, or wherever they were born.

Secondly, land ownership is also entirely IRRELEVANT to the right of NATIVE peoples to exercise self-determination. People are entitled to their homeland of birth, regardless of whether the house they were born in was rented or their own. In the same way, land purchase does not grant sovereignty rights to foreigners. They will be just foreign landowners.

So the bottom line is that when a foreign population (i.e. majoritarily born abroad) arrives to a territory with the intention to establish a state for themselves without the consent of the native population (i.e. majoritarily born there), that initiative can only be termed as "colonial", and fundamentally illegitimate, as a blatant violation of the right of self-determination of the native population of the said territory.

Now, when I talk about "occupation", I do so strictly according to International Law, referring only to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, and that no country on Earth recognizes as its sovereign territory (that includes East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights). The creation of Israel might have been fundamentally unjust and even illegitimate, but it is an internationally recognized state nonetheless, much like every other country of colonial origin (US, Canada, Chile, Australia...), whose current inhabitants of colonial origin have acquired a right to it, after being born there for generations. That does not mean, however that such state has any right to land beyond its recognized borders, nor to keep non-citizens in such land under its rule indefinitely. That's why I say occupation, in the aforementioned context, must end now.

The only thing clear FROY is your continued mocking of International Law … by continuing to portray the Jewish State as a colonial enterprise …

The indigenous inhabitants of Mandate Palestine did not hold title to the land … they were not citizens of a state … they were sojourners on lands that became part of what was to be called MANDATE PALESTINE … the governing authority … in this case Britain … gave preference to Jewish immigration … is that your problem? Governments do what they like typically … (ask Mubarak or Assad or Ghadafi) … and in fact … Britain's hands were tied … since the MISSION STATEMENT OF THE MANDATE proclaimed the necessity to provide a Homeland for the Jewish People … therefore the Ottoman's preference for Arab/Muslims were switched to Jews … do you have an objection? Take it up with the ICCJ … as an International Court … you should plead your case there … they love 'hot air' … windbags like you could do well … change vocation … see if you can succeed?

You said: "That does not mean, however that such state has any right to land beyond its recognized borders, nor to keep non-citizens in such land under its rule indefinitely. That's why I say occupation, in the aforementioned context, must end now."

Alright then … let's tackle this one … 'recognized borders' … how do you delineate borders when they have not been designated? The War of 1948 ended in an armistice … without accepting legally recognized borders! The state of Jordan annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem but this was NEVER RECOGNIZED except by Britain and Pakistan (LOL) … therefore what are the recognized borders? UN242 stated after 1967 … there should be 'defensible and recognized' borders between the belligerent states … BUT no one has been able to come to terms with these sentiments. So don't prejudge the borders … they will not be the 1949 Armistice Lines called the Green Line that's clear … so whatever the Israelis are doing may or may not be part of/within the Jewish State … that'll depend on the END OF CONFLICT SETTLEMENT.

Don't be ridiculous, Tzatz. No regime has the right to wholesale deprive of citizenship the native population of a territory under its rule. From being Ottoman citizens, native Palestinian Arabs automatically became citizens of the Mandate, which had all the formal trappings of a state, and from there they had the inalienable right to become citizens of whatever state was created on their homeland of birth. Anything else would be a gross violation of International Law.

Millions of native people were under British colonial rule at the same time as Palestinians. Some had never even been part of a formal "state" as we understand it in their entire History. That did not cancel those native people's right to their ancestral homeland of birth in any way. That's why you call it "inalienable". Any decision imposed against the will of the native population (such as allowing massive foreign immigration) could only be illegitimate in nature.

It's funny that you mention that the case should be taken by the ICJ. Had the decision about the fate of Palestine been taken by an impartial judicial body, uniquely based on International Law, instead of by a bunch of colonial powers entirely based on political calculations, there would be no Israel today, and millions of Jews and Arabs would have been spared all this suffering.

As for Israel's "borders", since no country on Earth recognizes one single inch of land beyond the Green Line as Israeli sovereign territory, we can safely declare it its de-facto "internationationally recognized borders", and everything else ruled by Israel, directly or indirectly, will be "under belligerent occupation", where settlement of Israeli civilians and artificial alteration of the territory's demographic composition is illegal under International Law.

The major powers will make decisions based on the verity of the case … in Israel's case … the 'facts' on the land already include … Jerusalem and the territories up to the Separation Barrier … [you know the barrier keeping out the suicide terrorists] … what remains is the 'security arrangements' for the Arab/Muslim territories … Netanyahu has already outlined what his/Israel's expectations are in these matters … the Arab/Muslims haven't 'come to the table' … when they do … the same offer will be there … DON'T EXPECT MORE … that's all

You said: "Palestinian Arabs automatically became citizens of the Mandate …"

That's ridiculous FROY … the British Mandate had a MISSION STATEMENT … TO BRING TO FRUITION A 'JEWISH HOMELAND' IN PALESTINE … without jeopardizing the rights of the Arab/Muslims!!! It didn't quite work out that way … the Arab/Muslims rejected the admission of Jews … and did everything in their power to forestall its creation … [THEREBY AIDING IN THE ANNIHILATION OF THE JEWS OF EUROPE] … finally in 1947 the UNITED NATIONS voted to create 2 states … ONE ARAB and ONE Jew … the Arab/Muslims didn't like that outcome either and went to war … first between Nov 1947 - May 1948 internally/the indigenous Arab/Muslims fought hard and cruelly with their neighbours and then in May 1948 … the Arab/Muslim States of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia and (various jihadis) attacked with EXTREME PREJUDICE the nascent Jewish State … attempting to NULLIFY the UNITED NATIONS VOTE … BTW … contravening INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE UN CHARTER …

The thugs lost that fight! The good guys won and have continued to prosper …

You said: "Any decision imposed against the will of the native population …"

FROY … YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS … the British Mandate GAVE BRITAIN THE RIGHT TO RULE … rulers make their own rules/laws as THEY SEE FIT … your Arab/Muslims had 22 states assigned to them … this particular zone was assigned to another group …

The Kurds of Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria … SOME 30 MILLION PEOPLE have NO RIGHTS TO A HOMELAND SINCE THE ARAB/MUSLIMS DENY THEM THE RIGHT!

But the Jews … with the Bible in their pocket … had more shlep … along with the undeniable/horrific otherworldly Holocaust giving the World a momentary lapse of pity/guilt … and v-wala … Israel happened … there's no turning back … if you'd have left it to the Arab/Muslims … there would be NO ISRAEL … BUT … thanks to a quirk in time … a miracle happened … if you want to see it as a miracle … a modern miracle … since a people … who had been tossed from their patrimony … 2000 YEARS LATER … were able to make it their own ONCE AGAIN … don't ever deny the miraculousness of that event … and every day thereafter! The Arab/Muslims may look at it as a 'naqba' but that's on them … lol

You say:
'…only NATIVE inhabitants of a given territory have a right to exercise their right of self-determination on it. You also need that those NATIVE inhabitants constitute a majority in the territory you claim, otherwise you are vulnerating the rights of the majority.'

That's another basic fault of yours, FROY. The WHOLE ESSENSE of the right for self-determination is that it requires no approval from no one, PARTICULARELY from a minority. That's why the Muslim minority was able to breakup from India, and all Gandhi could do is ask them nicely to stay, nothing more!

Not only that – In 1947 India and Pakistan were engaged in population exchanges BECAUSE their borders did not reflect the ethnical realities on the ground. Earlier, In 1923 Greece and Turkey conducted population exchanges as well.

UN Resolution 181 is aware of this also when it offered the Partition Plan. It is the UN itself that creates a mechanism for population exchanges as part of resolution 181 (Chapter 3, Article 1), stating that "Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State."

Specific areas enjoyed Jewish majority, like the coastal area north to Tel-Aviv, for example, and the creation of a geographical continuance between the different communities is doable also in Palestine like in other places.

Bottom line – the right for the Jewish people for self-determination can't be blocked, neither by a majority supposed veto, nor by geographical circumstances that can be addressed. The right for self-determination is at the top of the national rights 'food chain'.

You say:
'Only a tiny and scattered minority of them were had actually been living there since before the First Aliya.'

As mentioned, tiny minority as it may be, its rights are equal to the biggest nation in population., The principal of equality between nations isn't subject to their size.

And since you talk about the time of the first Aliya, which occurred towards the closing of the 19th century, how many Muslims lived in that area known as 'Palestine'? – In comparison to some 43,000 Jews, there were some 432,000 Muslims. Again – This does not limit the minority from exercising their right for self-determination! – Especially when we talk about a land stretch which is now a home to over 10 million people, are you really suggesting that the Jewish people PRIUCIPALLY must not be allocated a piece of land, small as it may be, in which it can exercise its right for self-determination?

It doesn't hold water, FROY. That's why the UN as well as the League of nations before it found it to be a JUST solution, to have the Jewish people establish a homeland exactly where they deserve to establish it – Judea! – or as it is referred to as 'Palestine'.

You say:
'…land ownership is also entirely IRRELEVANT to the right of NATIVE peoples to exercise self-determination.'

Those who define themselves today 'Palestinians', NEVER had ANY ownership, neither personal nor national over vast stretches of the land, like the Negev. Palestinians, for example, had ownership over the Negev desert similar to the one of Martians had they landed there. Palestinians NEVER inhabited the Negev, one of the reasons the Negev fell under the Jewish part under the partition plan. NO land grab, FROY. NO theft. NO 'colonialism'.

You say:
'Millions of native people were under British colonial rule at the same time as Palestinians. Some had never even been part of a formal "state" as we understand it in their entire History. That did not cancel those native people's right to their ancestral homeland of birth in any way. That's why you call it "inalienable".'

That depends, FROY. Ever heard about the case of the Chagossians natives of Diego Garcia? The Chagossians, an ethnic group residing on that Indian Ocean island, were expelled to Mauritius in the 1960s, in connection with the erection of an American strategic military installation on the island.

Ever since, the Chagossians have been conducting a persistent political and legal struggle to return to Diego Garcia. As of 2007, their right to return was recognized by several British courts but the UK government failed to actually implement it.

Have you ever run a struggle for the right of return of the Chagossians to their homeland? – I guess not. Please correct me if I am wrong..

Please, S.F., be a bit rational. Muslims in India were just as natives as Hindu ones. That's why they could exercise their right of self-determination. Had they been British immigrants trying to carve a slice of India for themselves, Gandhi wouldn't have asked so nicely.

And even if relative population size does not condition the exercise of self-determination, it does condition its use to claim a territory as your sovereign state. Being 2.5% of the population, native Palestinian Jews couldn't possibly expect to obtain a sovereign state for themselves, since that would have meant a huge injustice to the majority of non-Jewish Arab population in whatever piece of land they had chosen. European Jews knew well that they needed a sustainable majority in their future state for it to be viable in the long run. Hence the encouragement of Jewish immigration and the "encouragement" for Arab emigration.

But "population transfer" has been considered another thinly veiled euphemism for ethnic cleansing, and thus frowned upon after WWII, even if some regimes, like that of Stalin, kept regularly using it in impunity. That didnt make it any more legitimate. Much less when this is perpetrated by a largely foreign population on the natives.

"Palestinians NEVER inhabited the Negev"

That must be news for the thousands of bedouins living there in villages that long predate the establishment of Israel, but that the regime refuses to recognize, nor to provide them with the most basic services ("unlike "illegal" outposts in the West Bank), and which Israel has been trying to forcefully relocate since its very creation in its crude attempt to "judaize" the Negev.

You say:
'Please, S.F., be a bit rational. Muslims in India were just as natives as Hindu ones. That's why they could exercise their right of self-determination.'

You keep ignoring the fact that I talk about INDIGENOUS Jews of Palestine, FROY. They are the same like Muslims in Pakistan. And by 1890 they were 10%, not 2.5%. And stop waiving their small portion - it is IRRELEVANT! - And if they get a small portion of the land, that is NO injustice to the majority.

Now don't tell a Bedouin he is a Palestinian, without being seated in your Porsche, with the engine started, so that you could run away fast enough before they catch you and 'explain' you how wrong you are..

Those figures from 1890 already include tens of thousands of Russian Jews from the First Aliyah, which started around 1882. Even before that, a majority of Jews in Palestine were elderly Ashkenazim that moved to the Holy City for religious purposes from Eastern Europe. Only a part of the "Old Yishuv" we're actually native Arab-speaking Jews. 2.5% is a generous proportion. And this does matter if those native Jews wanted to establish a state without violating the rights of native non-Jews in the selected territory, as I explained.

Finally, Bedouins do consider themselves Arabs and Palestinians, even if there have been growing frictions with the non-Bedouin Arabs, and despite the crude attempts of Israel to further divide Palestinians and pitch one agains another (divide and conquer, old as empire).

You say:
'Those figures from 1890 already include tens of thousands of Russian Jews from the First Aliyah, which started around 1882.'
But the 432,000 figure for Muslims in 1890 include also tens of thousands of Egyptians who moved in during the Egyptian-Turk war, it includes Druze, Beduins (which no matter what you say, DO NOT consider themselves 'Palestinians'). We can go on and on with this drill, FROY, but its meaningless.
Trying to prove how small was the native Jewish community in Palestine, as if this has any effect on the right of NATIVE Jews for self-determination is futile, FROY. There were native Jews in Palestine, and if they so wish, they are entitled for independent state of their own, to which they can invite whoever they want.
The unjust move to DEPRIVE Jews of their universal right for self-determinatioon does not prevent them from excersizing their rights only becuase someone tries to deprive them from those rights.

When you have to resort to Joan Peters's ridiculous thesis it means you have finally run out of arguments. There was never mass-scale Arab immigration into Palestine, so the overwhelming majority of Palestinian Arabs in 1947 were as native as can be, unlike the mostly foreign-born Jews.

A handful of native Arab-speaking Jews, scattered around the territory could have well self-determined (i.e. define themselves as they pleased), but not create a state for themselves where they were not a majority. This is basic common sense. Besides, the drive for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine was entirely a European enterprise where native Mizrahi Jews had no input whatsoever. Don't try to portray it now as a native initiative that later "invited" their foreign brethren to join in. That is beyond preposterous. Not even the crudest hasbara would suggest such a ridiculous argument.

As for Bedouins in Israel, I will cite a report from HRW:

"Note on terminology: Palestinian Arab Bedouin see themselves as a part of the larger Palestinian Arab minority inside Israel. Some Bedouin prefer the label Palestinian or Palestinian Arab rather than Bedouin, in an effort to combat what they see as the Israeli state's deliberate policy of dividing its minority Palestinian Arab population."

As per the Human Rights Watch - Isn't that the organization that when trying to recruit donations in Saudi Arabia it cited the connection between money received in Saudi Arabia and Israel criticism? - It's good business critisizing Israel, it seems..
Anyway, the fact that Israeli Bedouin Arabs serve in the IDF is the clearest indication of all that they are NOT Palestinians, who for the large part refuse even to be engaged in any Israeli civil community service instead of going to the army.

'…when I talk about "occupation", I do so strictly according to International Law, referring only to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967... That's why I say occupation, in the aforementioned context, must end now.'

I agree with the comments made by Tzatz, and have nothing to add to that. I have only one question, FROY:

Suppose following WWII Germany and Japan refuse to surrender, and continue their aggressive path sending in squads to New-York, Moscow, Paris, London, Beijing, etc., would you also demand that the occupation of those countries end unconditionally?

"As per the Human Rights Watch - Isn't that the organization that when trying to recruit donations in Saudi Arabia it cited the connection between money received in Saudi Arabia and Israel criticism?"

That was Amnesty. Keep your fallacious arguments straight, please.

"Anyway, the fact that Israeli Bedouin Arabs serve in the IDF is the clearest indication of all that they are NOT Palestinians, who for the large part refuse even to be engaged in any Israeli civil community service instead of going to the army."

Between 5 and 10% of Israeli Bedouins volunteer to serve in the IDF. over 90% refuse to take part in the occupation force. That's indeed a "clear indication", but not of what you think it is.

You say:
'There was never mass-scale Arab immigration into Palestine'.

As most Arab immigrants were illegal, and due to the fact it is the 19th century and before we talk about there is only scaterred data about them. What you do is use the fact of litle recorded data, and wrongly conclude that there was no immigratiopn. This is patently false approach.

In his book "Population Characteristics of Jerusalem and Hebron Regions According to Ottoman Census of 1905," demographer U.O. Schmelz analysis of the Ottoman registration data for 1905 populations of Jerusalem and Hebron kazas (Ottoman districts), by place of birth, showed that of those Arab Palestinians born outside their localities of residence, approximately half represented intra-Palestine movement—from areas of low-level economic activity to areas of higher-level activity—while the other half represented Arab immigration into Palestine itself, 43 percent originating in Asia, 39 percent in Africa, and 20 percent in Turkey. Schmelz conjectured:

"The above-average population growth of the Arab villages around the city of Jerusalem, with its Jewish majority, continued until the end of the mandatory period. This must have been due—as elsewhere in Palestine under similar conditions—to in-migrants attracted by economic opportunities, and to the beneficial effects of improved health services in reducing mortality—just as happened in other parts of Palestine around cities with a large Jewish population sector."

It is an irony that Jewish immigration excelled Arab foreign migration as well, in search for jobs and better life.

Also British reports during the mandate discussed. The "Palestine Blue Book", 1937, for example, provides time series demographic statistics whose annual estimates are based on extrapolations from its 1922 census. The footnote accompanying the table on population of Palestine reads:

There has been unrecorded illegal immigration of both Jews and Arabs in the period since the census of 1931, but it is clear that, since it cannot be recorded, no estimate of its volume is possible.

The 1935 British report to the League of Nations noted that:

One thousand five hundred and fifty-seven persons (including 565 Jews) who, having made their way into the country surreptitiously, were later detected, were sentenced to imprisonment for their offence and recommended for deportation.

In this case only 1/3 of the illegal immigrants were Jews. The other 2/3, 1,000, were not Laplanders, you know..

And there is mof course the Egyption was from ~1840. How do you know 'Palestinians' today have the family bame 'al-Masri', or 'the Egyptian', in English?

As per recent data provided by the IDF, there is a sharp increase in Bedouins volunteering to the army, which by the way includes also female fighters. Note that in comparison to Bedouins in the Middle East, in Israel women advance towards more equality, which under Bedouin society is unheard of.

If depicting the nation and religion that was most tolerant of Jews throughout history and under whose rule Judaism flourished as never before and as in no where else; if depicting that religion, Islam, as NOT being the "religion of peace", but certainly NOt a submissive religion, nation and culture,then those that enjoyed that treatment prove once again their ingratitude!
All one has to do is read history.

Just a quick question to the Economist: you mention women in more affluent areas of Nablus beginning to discard the veil. By far the minority of women wear the veil in Nablus. Did you mean the hijab, or did you mean relatively affluent areas of Balata?

No wonder donors get tired of the Palestinians. there are actually two Palestinians now - the one in Gaza ruled by Hamas, and the West bank ruled by the PA. Neither Hamas or PLO let the other a foothold in his territory.

Until now the Palestinian leadership escaped the wrath of the masses we have seen in the neighboring Arab states. The day of the outbreak will come, eventually and Islamists will overthrow Abbas and his PLO in the West Bank.

The PA has become one more branch of the occupation. Israel outsources its dirty work to these corrupt collaborators, greatly reducing its image cost and dumping the huge financial cost of occupation on the International Community. Palestinians will sooner or later call off this charade, sack the collaborators, and take again the path of liberation. No people can stand that kind of humiliation indefinitely. The Arab Spring will eventually reach Palestine.

The Israelis weathered the last intifada … by building a wall and imposing checkpoints … maybe a total withdrawl to the fence (as recommended by Barak) is in order … sort of making the West Bank into a Gaza Strip … including a total sealing off of economic activity between Israel and 'the other' …

Of course … should rockets et al be shot at civilians/military inside Israel … there will be a rapid and ultimately lethal response … sending the world and the liberal lefties into paroxysms of hand wringing … oh well …

You louts in Europe can't 'get it up' for Jewish sovereignty but side with the Arab/Muslim terrorists … that's on YOU.

Get used to it …

What the 'Arab Spring' has shown the world is … the Arab/Israeli Conflict … IS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE ARAB/MUSLIM WORLD'S MORASS …

• the Arab/Muslim World is dysfunctional IN AND OF ITSELF

• the Arab/Muslim World is not coping with Modernity …

• the Arab/Muslim World has been shown to be incapable of dealing with the 21st C using a culture breathing the air of the 7th Century!

Don't expect change to occur until you see a change of 'values' … a change in the 'culture' … a change in the religion … AN ENLIGHTENMENT … a move to reason and modernity … it won't happen tomorrow so you can hold your breathe but it will happen in the decades to follow …

but don't pin it on the Jewish State … that the Arab/Muslims are dysfunctional … THAT'S ON THE ARAB/MUSLIMS!

I have been following your posts for quite some time. I have come to the following conclusions:

a) Your are either an Israeli or related to an Israeli, and most likely are very young
b) You have never visited the West Bank nor Gaza
c) You have never had a face-to-face conversation with any Palestinian
d) You "know" what you know from the narrative fed to you from your Zionist colleagues
e) You have never visited any country you consider "Arabic" but you seem to know so much about these countries
f) Since you really lack an argument in defending Israel's outrageous treatment of Palestinians, you resort to childish labeling and name calling with people you disagree with, calling them "louts", Leftists, etc. Name calling is what little children do to each other in the playground; this apparently demonstrates the quality of your position.
g) You may even live in an illegal Israeli settlement, and perhaps are one of the bloggers paid a stipend by the Israeli government.

One thing is for sure: we can expect more vitriolic and hypersensitive comments from you in these columns in the future. Shalom and I wish you well and all the best.

If you'd been following my comments … you'd know I'm a Canadian … I've lived and taught in the Jewish State some 32 Years Ago (World History, Jewish History, and the Holocaust) … I traveled in Egypt … Israel … Turkey … quite extensively … I am pro-Israel … I'm Jewish … and in my youth a Zionist … but I CHOSE not to live in Israel … opting for my Canadian home.

The fact that I use language unbecoming is to emphasize … I don't suffer fools gladly!

The key is to give up all violance and take up complete resistance against the occupation and the apartheid regime in Israel. No apartheid will last forever. Palestinians have to follow the teachings of Gene Sharp

Having just returned home from 15 months in the West Bank, I agree that violence isn't an especially promising recourse for Palestinians. The problem is, nonviolent actions have characterised the majority of Palestinian political expressions from the dawn of Zionism in the late 19th century. Neither they nor the military option, nor of course the weary UN attempt have changed facts on the ground for the better. In fact the most promising, Oslo, has also ended up being the most disastrous for Palestinians. The only hope, I fear, is that the US begins to use its huge aid to Israel as leverage, but there's no political stomach for that I take it?

The apartheid analogy is flattery. Israel is more like a cross between the Confederacy and Bolshevik Russia, and it occupies the United States, Britain, Canada and Western Europe. Anyone who pretends to believe in Islamic terrorism is living proof that we are living under Israeli occupation.

The problem was never settlements, 'occupation', and the rest of the excuses for the continuation of aggression against Israel's existence, as even when the West bank & Gaza were out of Israel's hands terrorism against Israel flourished.

What do you think really happened on 9/11/2001? Do you think that the BBC report of the collapse of WTC 7 26 minutes before it happened was a "cock up" to quote the BBC? Do you believe in the fat Osama bin Laden or the two fake Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds? What do you think happened in London on 7/7/2005? Do you really believe that the attack on the USS Liberty was a case of mistaken identity?

Apparently, I need to download this again, and I recommend reading the articles.

Tooth Fairies And Suicide Bombers
or
"Hi, my name is Abdula. I'll be your suicide bomber this evening ..."
by Carol A. Valentine

Before me on my desk are two color photos of — can you believe — students who attend "suicide bomber" schools. The schools are run by either the Hamas, or Hamas "sympathizers."

One dramatic front page color photo appeared in the Washington Times of December 10, 2001 with this caption:

Ready to Die: At an anti-Israeli demonstration commemorating Hamas's 14th anniversary yesterday, suicide bombers with fake dynamite strapped to their chests paraded near the southern Lebanese city of Sidon.

The photo is attributed to Associated Press, and shows at least 10 people, whose faces and bodies are entirely covered by white sheeting, facing the camera.

Another dramatic front page color photo appeared in the Washington Times on March 4, 2002. The caption reads:

"Hamas activists, dressed as 'suicide bombers' with fake explosives strapped to their waists, rallied yesterday in the West Bank."

There are at least 11 white-garbed clowns in this photo, which is again attributed to Associated Press....

Israel has declared on many occasions that assassination is its official policy. How many times have we heard of Palestinian leaders summarily shot dead on the spot by Israeli hit men? That being the case, how realistic is it that the Israelis would permit these young "suicide bombers" to train openly, and march down the street openly? How likely do you think it is that Israel would permit REAL suicide bomber schools to exist?http://public-action.com/911/toothfairies.html

The Myth of the Suicide Bomber
Why "Suicide Bombing" Must be a Myth and What Purposes it Really Serves

The Hamas rocket attacks are an Israeli false flag operation, which benefits no one but Zionist fanatics. Isn't it curious that a hundred fold increase in the rocket attacks has no effect on the death toll.

This website reveals that the rockets are designed to be harmless but to produce impressive smoke trails. It includes the following caption: "Alleged Hamas rocketeers right next to the electric fence that separates the Gaza strip from occupied Palestine proper, there are Israeli watch towers just a few hundreds of meters from where the rockets have been fired." It also includes a photograph of a Hamas fighter with a small Star of David tatto.

I said 'the majority' of Palestinian political expressions have been political, such as the peasant mobilisations and election of nationalists to the Ottoman parliament following the Afula Affair, civil disobedience such as that of Musa Kazem al-Husseini under the Mandate, the huge nonviolent movement reinvigorated during the first intifada led by Mubarak Awad and the wonderful proliferation of nonviolence groups since then.

As for your other point, saying the problem is Palestinian aggression is putting the cart before the horse. The problem is a simple choice but one Israel doesn't want to make:

Annexe the Territories and give full rights of citizens to its peoples, and be a truly democratic non-confessional state;

Relinquish the Territories completely as a sovereign independent state or states, and retain a Jewish majority and democracy but relinquish this bit of land;

Or retain the status quo in which a huge number of people under Israeli control do not have any political rights to speak of, and then give up the 'democracy' label?

You said: "Relinquish the Territories completely as a sovereign independent state or states, and retain a Jewish majority and democracy but relinquish this bit of land"

In 2000 … PM Barak made the offer

In 2008 … PM Olmert made the offer

We're still awaiting an answer … there will be no answer except for the Arab/Muslims to compromise … their failure to compromise is why we're in the situation we're currently in …

Abbas & co. are content with the status quo … they 'prosper' by it

Hamastan is content with the status quo … they're still in charge and hope for a 'knock-out' punch with the help of Iran or the MB in Egypt

In other words … the Arab/Muslims are content to 'pay it forward' …

Netanyahu is content to keep things as they are as well … why not? Israel is prospering … the government has a LARGE COALITION FROM ALL ACROSS the political spectrum …

But change is inevitable … but remember the laws of physics … "the tendency of an object to resist any change …" Newton's First Law "… a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line."

The Israelis are 'waiting' for the Arab/Muslims to change … whether that change is 'recognition of the Jews to sovereignty in the Jewish State of Israel' or the next intifada … life is full of choices …

When I say offer to relinquish the territories, this has to mean allowing for sovereignty, which means borders, control of water resources, control of roads. Sovereignty - it's pretty simple! Barak's 92% (questionable) of the West Bank did not include these.

Meanwhile, Olmert? Nope. The Palestinian negotiators were listened to by Livni, who recognised their 'painful sacrifice' of their capital and most settlement blocs, i.e. contiguity, i.e. true sovereignty, and then said 'no'. Loads on the so-called Palestine Papers about this.

The Palestinians have offered everything except their dream of one day being able to have either equality in binational state or a truly sovereign state, which Israel won't countenance. I have no doubt that for many the fear of Iran, the fear of the lack of a buffer territory etc. that these are real, felt fears. And I agree that Israel has little short-term incentive to move away from the status quo for as long as it is thoroughly bankrolled by the US. But it's an extraordinarily expensive military complex and one that I sincerely believe makes Israel more insecure in the long-run.

What race? To his credit, Ayatollah Khomeini never said, everyone hate me because I belong to the Muslim race. And I am the first to admit that Zionists and communists were a small band of murderous fanatics, motivated in large part by a desire to prevent Jews from assimilating. Karl Marx, himself, was born Moses Mordecai Levy, and was descended from a long line of Italian rabbis.

IS IT TRUE that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that:
a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and
b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and
c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.

IS IT TRUE that the Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.

IS IT TRUE that the answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments:
a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees.
b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war.
c) No ransom will be paid

IS IT TRUE that this response to the Gestapo's offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.

IS IT TRUE that in 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved.

IS IT TRUE that the same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions).

IS IT TRUE that during the height of the killings in the war, 270 Members of the British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany.

IS IT TRUE that this offer was rejected by the Zionist leaders with the observation "Only to Palestine!"

IS IT TRUE that the British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The "Jewish Agency" leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be gassed.

IS IT TRUE that during the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weitzman, the first "Jewish statesman" stated: "The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important". Weitzman's cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe".

You can read all you want about the Palestine Papers BUT … BOTH OLMERT & BARAK … OFFERED THE PALESTINIANS SOVEREIGNTY.

The Americans were in shock when Arafat said NOTHING and then years later Abbas said NOTHING. These slugs aren't interested in their own state … they're still interested in Israel's destruction.

It will require years of pacification … education … before the Arab/Muslim can 'chill' enough for them to accept a sovereign Jewish State … the 'old guard' must die before the 'new guard' can accept the 'half a loaf' that's left for their 'rump state' … sorry it'll never be more than that … but at least it'll be all their own.

There is such a thing as Jewish racism. More information can be found at Alabaster's Archive and Jewish Tribal Review. By the way, Al Jolson was Jewish as was David O. Selznick of "Gone With the Wind" fame. Neither was a hatemonger, but hatred would have been an improvement.

Cey, while there are non-violent Palestinians, what matters more is what their leadership does. In parallel to Musu Kazem Al-Husseini activities, Palestinians executed pogroms on Jews is cities like Hebron and Safed in 1929, the Hebron one ended the Jewish presence if the city of 3000 years, as the survivors were cleansed from that city.

I am sure you heard about the Jerusalem Mufti haj Amin al-Husseini, and his violent record and partnership with Hitler.

You say:
'As for your other point, saying the problem is Palestinian aggression is putting the cart before the horse. The problem is a simple choice but one Israel doesn't want to make:'

The choices you give relate to what Israel does with the territories it occupied in 1967. The reason your claim as if 'I put the cart before the horse, is that if the 1967 occupation was the problem, the why PRIOR to the 1967 war NONE of the Arab states were ready to recognize Israel's right to exist? - Why was the PLO established in 1964?

The 1967 war and the 'occupation' are COSEQUENTIAL to the Arab aggression, not the reason for the problems now Israel has to solve. had there been no Arab aggression, there would be no 1967 'occupation'!

in other words, the REAL choice Israel has is to either 'occupy' the territories, or risk being occupied by the Palestinians. THTA'S the choices Israel has.

And by the way, was the 'status quo' of the US/UK/France/USSR occupation of Japan and Germany a problem? - If it was not a problem then, why should it be with Israel's occupation of the West Bank?

...It doesn't really matter if alongside them a few or many got hit. Targetting them indiscriminantely with rockets is a War Crime!

In addition, any time someone in Gaza chooses top presses few buttons, the lives of about a million Israeli citizens are affected – people have to stay indoors, kids do not go to school, their parents have to skip work, etc. This is the other goal of terrorism – disrupting the lives of ordinary Israelis.

Imagine you have a back yard where your kids play, and when the alarm goes off because a rocket was fired, and your children have merely 15 SECONDS to get back home. Imagine they are on their school bus on the way to school, and a bus fully loaded with kids have 15 seconds to off load, so that the kids can lay down the road with their heads between their hands to protect their sculls. Imagine you have to wake up three times during the night, and rush your family, within 15 seconds, into the secured room you had to spend $18,000 building out of reinforced concrete, so that if one nut head in Gaza so wishes, he can send few rockets targeting your head.

Get the picture, Mark? – Is there any country on earth, with the exception of Israel of course, which would be expected to accept such reality? – Would you??

None of your BS is true … it's only on nazi websites … or those that follow the nazi program … like thugs like you … do all Poor White Trash like yourself … have no saichel? Do you all live in basement apartments and tatoo yourselves up? Just asking?
Like my mother said: 'Skyem provedosay nevera verosay' which translated means 'You know what kind of person you are by the people you hang out with' …
You hang with the Nazis … makes YOU a Nazi … something smells arund here … must be you and your thoroughly discredited ideas …
What gets guys like you off? Little boys? Fuck off and die shithead!

Cey, while there are non-violent Palestinians, what matters more is what their leadership does. In parallel non-violent activities, Palestinians executed pogroms on Jews is cities like Hebron and Safed in 1929, the Hebron one ended the Jewish presence if the city of 3000 years, as the survivors were cleansed from that city.

I am sure you heard about the Jerusalem Mufti haj Amin al-Husseini, and his violent record and partnership with Hitler.

You say:
'The only hope, I fear, is that the US begins to use its huge aid to Israel as leverage...'

The reason your claim that the US supposed levarage has no relevance, is that if the 1967 occupation was the problem, then why PRIOR to the 1967 war NONE of the Arab states were ready to recognize Israel's right to exist? - Why was the PLO established in 1964?

The 1967 war and the 'occupation' are COSEQUENTIAL to the Arab aggression, not the reason for the problems now Israel has to solve. had there been no Arab aggression, there would be no 1967 'occupation'!

In other words, the REAL choice Israel has is to either 'occupy' the territories, or risk being occupied by the Palestinians. THTA'S the choices Israel has.

Therefore, the US levarage has to fall on the Palestinians, to once and for all accept Israel as the Jewish state. Such a recognition will break the deadlock.

Ever since the 1937 Peel Partition Plan all the way to Olmert 2008, the Palestinians refuse to take 'yes' for an answer. They simply won't settle for less than 100% of the land.

The Palestinians' struggle against Israel is existential in nature, not political.

The Palestinians' end game is the establishment of 'Palestine' over the ruins of Israel, not side-by-side it. They still reject the concept of an independent Jewish state that lives in peace on ANY poart of the land.

Who do you think you are fooling by spelling Karl Marx, "Karl Marks"? It must be an attempt to prove that you are not a professional disinformation agent, but anyone who knows that Danny K was Daniel Kaminsky and Jerry Lewis is Gershon Levitz probably knows how to spell Karl Marx, especially since I wrote it with an x. Do you also think the Marx Brothers were the Marks Brothers? I admit that I make my share of typographical errors, usually because the touch is too heavy on my keyboard.

"The 1967 war and the 'occupation' are COSEQUENTIAL to the Arab aggression, not the reason for the problems now Israel has to solve. had there been no Arab aggression, there would be no 1967 'occupation'!"

Israelis always knew that the 1967 war was unprovoked Israeli aggression like every other Israeli war, except the 1973 war. Even Moshe Dayan admitted it.

Apart for the fact that the lead Arab aggressor of that war was Egypt (called at the time the United Arab Republic – a union formed with Syria in 1958), violating the 1956 armistice with Israel (naval blockade on Israel-bound shipping in the Tiran Waterways; entering armed forces into the Sinai Peninsula; expelling the UN Emergency Force from Sinai; all accompanied by belligerent statement, etc.) – Don’t tell me you base your case on Madam Reinhardt. Even many left-wing Israeli activists considered her extreme in her political views.
Uri Avneri, a declared post-Zionist, said about Reinhardt: "Her approach was very radical…Compared to her I was a distinguished Zionist. She rejected the existence of the State of Israel… was never a Zionist. She was a clear anti-Zionist. Both of us fiercely opposed the occupation - but in my opinion she went too far. She wanted to throw out the baby with the bathwater."

I doubt the authenticity of that supposed interview with Dayan Reinhardt talks about. Being a supposed Yediot newspaper report from 1976, and not a military top secret document, I find it very strange she dug that up in 1997, some 15 years after Dayan's death, making it impossible for him to confirm or deny such claims of her.

8. "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972.

Mark, all the quotes you bring are from radical people. Matityahu Peled, who was a General at the General Staff during te 1967 crisis, turned later into a radical 'peace activist'.

When he was the IDF General Staff memeber, howvwer, he acted differently. At the days leading to the war Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol seemed to be hesitating whether or not to launch a pre-emptive attack on the Egyptian armies concentrating in the Sinai. Peled was among a group of generals who demanded that the government start a war, and threatened to resign if it did not.

Maybe the sense of survival threat also with General Peled was genuine after all, isn't it?

WASHINGTON -- New documents released this week by America's National Security Agency support Israel's version of a
long-festering controversy between the two countries. Israel's sinking of an American spy ship, the USS Liberty, off the coast
of Gaza during the 1967 Six-Day War.

Israel has always said it had no idea the ship was American, but conspiracy theorists and anti-Israel propagandists still claim
Israel sank the ship in the full knowledge that it was American.

The documents, originally defined as top secret, were made public by Florida Judge Jay Cristol, who has been investigating
the Liberty incident for years and published a book on the subject last year. On Monday, the NSA gave him a transcript of
conversations held by two Israeli Air Force helicopter pilots who were hovering over the Liberty as it was sinking, and these
tapes confirm Israel's claim that the sinking of the ship, which killed 34 American servicemen and wounded 171, was a tragic error.

Please, Mark. I understand you're in love with conspiracy theories. But even this must have a limit; you have no idea how rediculous it sounds, claiming that Israel fires from Gaza rockets on Israeli towns.

I read the article, and it failed to provide any evidence to support its claims, and it claimed that the USS Liberty sank, which it did not. That is why we know what happened. That is why we know that President Johnson tried to assist Israel in sinking the ship and why we know that the life rafts were fired on with machine guns. The website and its source did not inspire any confidence either. Besides, the claim that the attack on the Liberty was a case of mistaken identity would insult the intelligence of a six year-old, despite what The International Wall of Prayer says the NSA said.
USS Liberty: Did Israel commit one war crime to hide another?
By James M. Ennes, Jr.,
The Washington Post Report on Middle East Affairs, May/June 1996http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/023.html
Declaration of Ward Boston, Jr., Captain, JAGC, USN (Ret.)http://www.wrmea.com/archives/March_2004/0403010.html

The Israeli forces attacked with full knowledge that the Liberty was an American ship, yet survivors have been forbidden to tell their story under oath to the American public.

Joe Meadors was on the Liberty during the attack.

"I watched some jets pass us then turn left after they passed our ship, then they started strafing [attacking repeatedly with bombs or machine-gun fire from low-flying aircraft] us," Meadors told Truthout.

"The attack lasted 90 minutes, during which we got a message off to the 6th fleet asking for assistance, and we learned later, Joe Tully, commanding officer of the USS Saratoga, launched aircraft within minutes of the attack, but he told us later they were recalled before they reached the horizon. We found this out 20 years after the attack."

Meadors said he and his group, the USS Liberty Veterans Association, believe that Rear Adm. Lawrence Geis, the Sixth Fleet carrier division commander at the time of the attack, was following orders from Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who called off the Navy's rescue mission for the USS Liberty.

Meadors, along with other survivors of the attack, have been engaged in what has evolved into a more than 40-year struggle to find justice.

"The most frustrating thing has been a lack of reaction from the US government," Meadors explained, "On June 8, 2005 we filed a war crimes report, and they [the US Government] are required to investigate these allegations. They've created reports about our mission, but they never did conduct an actual investigation of the attack itself."

Meadors and the other veterans he works with to bring about a governmental investigation of the attack take the position that they should not have to force the government to do this.

In 2003, an independent commission of highly regarded experts was created to look into the matter. The Moorer Commission, named after its chairman, included Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, United States Navy (Ret.), former chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff and Gen. Raymond G. Davis, United States Marine Corps and former assistant commandant of the Marine Corps.

Findings of this commission included: "Israel launched a two-hour air and naval attack against USS Liberty ... Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded ... Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew."

Ray McGovern is a senior CIA analyst who served under seven presidents - from John Kennedy to George H. W. Bush.

McGovern is clear about why he believes the US government continues to refuse to launch an investigation. "For the same reason that President Johnson called back the fighter/bombers; i.e., so as not to embarrass our friend Israel," McGovern explained to Truthout, "It is my view that the killing of 34 USS Liberty crew and wounded more than 170 others and the fact that the US Navy, Congress, executive branch not only prohibited the survivors to speak about it, but also launched faux 'inquiries,' is the poster child for what is wrong with the US relationship with Israel, showing the penchant of senior US officials to sacrifice honesty, justice, and US servicemen on the sacral altar of "compassionate attachment" to Israel."

McGovern added that, in his view, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty is "the archetypical example of how Israel was given convincing affirmation of its belief that it can get away with murder, literally, and the US Gulliver would be bound to ignore it ... or even mount 'official' inquiries to explain it away."

Bryce Lockwood survived the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and was awarded the Silver Star for his heroic actions during the attack, when he saved at least one wounded sailor's life.

Lockwood, like McGovern, feels there is no doubt whatsoever that the attack was no accident.

"It was deliberate," Lockwood told Truthout. He went on to explain why he thinks Moshe Dayan, who was appointed as Israel's Defense Minister in 1967, ordered the attack.

"I only learned recently, via a document released by the CIA, that Dayan ordered the attack, despite objections from his staff members," Lockwood explained, "Our ship had the capability of monitoring virtually everything ... all communications. The Israelis had nuclear capability, and it was extremely important to the Johnson administration that the Israelis not use the nuclear option. We could monitor all of this, even when it was done by the Israelis. The Israelis wanted unbridled use of the nuclear option, and they didn't want us to know about it ... that's why they attacked us."

Another reason why Lockwood is so certain that the attack was deliberate is because he watched Joe Meadors hoist three US flags up a pole in an attempt to insure the Israeli pilots knew they were firing on a US ship.

"The Israelis claim they didn't see a US flag, but they shot down two, and Joe raised three of them, since they kept firing on them," Lockwood explained, "They riddled the third with bullet holes, but it stayed up."

In addition, writing in his memoirs, Richard Helms, the director of Central Intelligence at the time of the attack, explained that the CIA undertook a "final" investigation after more evidence became available, and he offered the following information concerning the CIA's final finding:

"Israeli authorities subsequently apologized for the incident, but few in Washington could believe that the ship had not been identified as an American naval vessel. Later, an interim intelligence memorandum concluded the attack was a mistake and not made in malice against the US.... I had no role in the board of inquiry that followed, or the board's finding that there could be no doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty. I have yet to understand why it was felt necessary to attack this ship or who ordered the attack."

Meadors' and Lockwood's struggle to find justice spans decades, and there doesn't appear to be an end in sight.

Meadors is measured in his explanation of how he perceives the politics behind the lack of an investigation. "Politicians feel the Israeli lobby is so powerful, that if they do anything about this it will cost them votes. Nobody thinks it was a mistake, everybody knows it was deliberate. But they won't investigate it because they feel it would damage the relationship between the US and Israel."

"I'm disgusted with our country and our representatives," Lockwood concluded, "My country doesn't give a damn about me or the people on the Liberty. I'm terribly disappointed in the way our country has dealt with us."

While both Meadors and Lockwood urge people to contact their Congressional representatives and demand an investigation, Meadors is moving ahead with looking for an attorney who will help the USS Liberty Veterans group to which he belongs determine if they have a course of action through federal courts.

USS Liberty entered a war zone. By June 8th fighting was still raging, even though it was clear Israel has the upper hand.

Let's leave aside the fact the US Navy didn't inform Israel of the ship's presence in the area. Let's also put aside the fact that we talk about the 1960's, were was machines of the 1950's technology were deployed, meaning even no radar systems available.

Can you please suggest a motive here? - Why on earth would Israel be interested in harming a US vessel and its crew? - What possibly could Israel benefit from such an incident?

Confirmation that the Amberjack was in the area and that it had made a film and photo record of the attack suggest a number of lines for further inquiry. First and foremost has to be the issue of possible prior knowledge or even connivance by the White House in what was about to take place. Was it happenstance that the submarine was in the same location as the Liberty or was it by design? Was there any advance notice to Washington that an attack might take place? Could the USS Liberty have been an intended victim of a false flag simulated Egyptian attack, leading to American involvement on behalf of Israel in the fighting? Though that line of inquiry might appear implausible, the White House ordered the return of US warplanes sent to assist the Liberty, suggesting that Johnson knew who the attackers were in spite of the fact that the Israelis had covered over their aircraft markings in an apparent attempt to blame the Egyptians. One might also recall the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

I just answered that. Israel and elements in the American government and military were trying to involve The United States directly in the war. The American military is full of Christian fundamentalists who view the modern state of Israel as a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. Click my name for further information, and search for "Mark S. Oller" or markoller.

The reason for involving The United States was greater Israeli expansion. The war had nothing to do with defense, and it is an irrefutable fact that the attack on The USS Liberty was a false flag operation. Or, do you think the Israeli pilots were blind?

Attacking the Liberty was insane, but Zionists are famous for high stakes gambles. That includes the Balfour declaration, World War II, the Kennedy assassination and the World Trade Center demolition. When the gamble pays off it's called chutzpah.

You say:
'The reason for involving The United States was greater Israeli expansion.'

the point I made, I think, kis that by June 8th, the date when USS Liberty was attacked, there was NO NEED for any help to win 'greater Israeli expansion', as you write, because by June 8th, 97% of all the territories occupied in the 1967 was were already in israel's hands. So again - this claim of yours makes no sense..

As per the blind Israeli pilots - There isn't a single war on record where there are no friendly-fire casualties, Mark. Errors gets people killed, not because those who fire are blind, but because shit happens.